Salvation by Natural Instead of Supernatural Means

Conversation
42

I’ve read some work by more mainstream critical scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, Peter Enns, and several critical commentaries on books of the Bible.

I note you cite one Christian author, more Christian authors, and only one secular NT biblical scholar (and you have admitted earlier that the NT evidence is usually unconvincing).

Even the books I’ve read by Christian authors don’t shy away from admitting that their position is in the minority among critical scholars and explain why, so I’m aware of many arguments by critical scholars on various things.

Is this any different from creationists saying that their position is in the minority amongst scientists, and explain why, who say they are aware of many arguments by scientists on various things?

What you read colors your view. As an example, take the Pharisees. When we think of Pharisees today, what do we think of? We think, hypocrites.

E.P. Sanders, an evangelical Christian and one of the most prominent Professors of Judaism today, wrote of the Pharisees thus;

"Similarly with regard to the Pharisees: others could see their scrupulous definition and fulfilment of the laws as being merely external activity that masked inner hypocrisy and self-righteousness, but they did not themselves see it that way. They thought that God had given them his law and bestowed on them his grace, and that it was their obligation within the loving relationship with God to obey the law precisely.

How do we know that they saw it this way? Partly by common-sense inferences based on observation of other religious polemic and defences. There are, however, passages that show that Pharisees themselves (and their rabbinic successors) regarded love and devotion to God as standing at the centre of their attempt to obey the law in every detail. According to Josephus many people followed the Pharisees’ rules of worship because they admired their high ideals, expressed ‘both in their way of living and in their discourse’ (Antiq. 18.15). Josephus saw them as being ‘affectionate to each other’, and he said that they cultivated ‘harmonious relations with the community’—unlike the Sadducees (War 2.166). That is, the Pharisees paid attention to the part of the law that says to love God and the neighbour. These passages in Josephus do not precisely describe inner motive, but their general thrust is relevant. Josephus is claiming that the Pharisees were good and kind and that their devotion to God was admired. We should also recall the depth of that devotion, which we summarized above: the willingness to die rather than be false to what they believed.

Explicit statements about motive come in rabbinic literature. I know of no body of literature that so emphasizes the importance of right intention and pure motive, of acting in a spirit of love and humility. Thus Hillel, in a saying retained in Aramaic: ‘A name made great is a name destroyed’ (Avot 1.13). To Hillel is also attributed this statement: ‘Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Law’ (Avot 1.12). According to Hillel’s predecessor Shemaiah, one should ‘love labour and hate mastery’ (Avot 1.10). The Pharisees did not regard themselves as observing the law for the sake of self-glorification.

The topic of motive, ‘intention’, is even more directly discussed by the post-70 rabbis, making use of the phrase ‘directing the heart’ (to God). The scholar who studies much is not superior to his fellow, the common person, provided that the latter ‘directs the heart to Heaven’ (Berakhot 17a). Similarly the size of an offering does not matter, and all are called ‘an odour of sweet savour’. This is ‘to teach that it is all one whether a man offers much or little, if only he directs his mind towards heaven’ (Menahot 13.11). I do not know of any sayings of this sort that are attributed to pre-70 Pharisees, but rabbinic literature attributes relatively few sayings (as distinct from legal discussions) to pre-70 Pharisees. I propose, however, that here as elsewhere the rabbis were the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees.

We may conclude that the Pharisees did not see their meticulous definition and observance of the law as being hypocritical and that they were not consciously seeking self-glorification; they were motivated by true religious devotion and the desire to serve God."

–E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE

This is quite different to how pastors and many Christians view Pharisees!!

Were the Pharisees really as bad and hypocritical as the gospels would have you believe?

Understanding other’s perspectives is crucial to understanding why they believe (or don’t) believe, as well as understanding human nature in polemicising people of other tribes or religion. Both Judaism and Christianity are no special exceptions in how they treat other groups or religions with tribalist polemic.

Personally, I find the OT biblical studies more interesting (YMMV) and conclusive given there the OT has more… interesting things you can study and investigate, both in terms of archaeology and literarily.

What secular OT bible scholar have you read?

You’re assuming there a linear relationship that more prayer by self-identified Christians = less cases of COVID. But that’s an incredibly simplistic reading of Jesus’ words and the Bible - even many secular mainstream scholars would agree with me on that. No serious Christian reader of the Bible has ever claimed such a thing, or thought that the Bible teaches that.

The bible says if you believe and have faith, you can move mountains.

So Covid-19 is not a valid mountain? Why not?

Is there an example of a faith that moved mountains? Or was it an empty platitude from Jesus (or at least, the gospel writer)?

Or was Jesus just being metaphorical?

43

5 posts were split to a new topic: Christianity and Islam

44

In Nigeria, the Covid-19 death toll is pretty low (but don’t be deceived, our testing capacity is greatly limited, so we can’t get many people tested including those who will eventually become severely ill), so when many Nigerian Christians compare it to the huge figures coming from the US and Europe, they actually thank God for keeping away the deaths from Nigeria. To these Nigerian Christians, God somehow favored Nigeria by keeping their fatality rate low but didn’t do much for the US (including her Christians). Even when they pray, the invoke the “blood of Jesus” to protect them from the virus, and many of them don’t wear masks as a result.

In short, Covid-19 was largely defeated by God here in Nigeria due to the low fatality rate from the perspective of Nigerian Christians.

I am still waiting for God to regrow the legs of amputees. That’s would be a very huge mountain to move.

1 Like
45

I don’t agree (i.e., not anachronistic at all.) Coins with Caesar’s image on them had been in that area since the time of Augustus.

It was one of the coins of Jesus’ day, not the only one. It is mentioned twice (if I recall correctly) in the Synoptic Gospels because it was the required coin for the Temple tax. It was NOT the only coin in circulation.

Some taxes were paid in goods and some in coin. I’m surprised that anyone would claim otherwise.

By 70 A.D. silver coins had become much more common in the eastern portion of the empire and the Romans certainly enjoyed the convenience of collecting taxes in coin. But the province of Judea saw a variety of coins long before that date due to heavy commerce and even the Roman soldiers and officials stationed there. Indeed, this is why the role of the money changers was so important. The Jews needed to be able to convert that large variety of coin into one that was acceptable in the Temple, the Tyrian Shekel.

So there were indeed coins with the image of Caesar on them in Jesus day. Glad we agree on that. Thus, it made sense for Jesus to use such a coin with Caesar’s image on it—he only needed one—for answering a question which was meant to trick him into saying something unpopular. Jesus answer, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s . . .” The existence of the Tyrian shekel refutes this not a bit. (Many scholars consider the comment a jab by Jesus against the fact that the Jewish leaders had been “bought” by the Romans and would have been among those more likely to have a Roman silver coin on them.)

How? I don’t follow your logic here at all.

I was fascinated by your link. The article came close to actually explaining the key issue with the lake/sea translation ambiguity which was absent in Attic Greek but very much a reality in the heavily Septuagint influenced language (which spilled into the Koine Greek of the land of the Jews in the first century.) The LXX has many flaws but like any other “standard”, its eccentricities—such as preserving the sea/lake ambiguity which exists in Hebrew but not in Attic Greek—left its mark on the Koine Greek of the New Testament. In grad school I was very much impressed with the work of Maximilian Zerwick in explaining the many Semiticisms pervading the Koine Greek of the New Testament. We can argue about what the vernacular language should have said but tradition and common usage doesn’t necessarily follow our preferences.

[Of the past two years on these forums I have posted several tangents on how semantic domains and translation dynamics lead to what non-linguists often consider problematic incongruities but which are simply part of the “messiness” of translation, a process which is not a mathematical equivalency and often more art than science. For example, one can argue till one is blue in the face that a guinea pig is not a kind of pig at all but that doesn’t make it an incorrect term in a translation. Similarly a sheep dog is not a strange hybrid produced by crossing a sheep and a dog and “raining cats and dogs” has nothing to do with domesticated animals falling from the sky. Language is often maddeningly complex, confusing, and even misleading (to non-native speakers.) Again, I will resist the temptation to post another long tangent here on semantic domains and quirky translation anecdotes.]

Yes, in modern English we tend to think of lakes as small and calm while seas are much larger (and saltier) but we can’t necessarily impose our modern English semantic domains on the languages of the first century. Back in the 1960’s I feared drowning on a tiny Midwestern lake when a sudden storm gave me the fright of my life.

My apologies for just now getting around to commenting on a post from four days ago but I found it very interesting and worthy of some dissection.

POSTSCRIPT: I corrected my unintentional but fun pun: “and quirky translation antidotes.”

4 Likes
46

About 95% (well, actually, over 96%) of the 4400 coinage at Isfiya were the Tyrian shekel.

If 95% of coins in a America were the Japanese yen, it would be awfully difficult for American taxes to be paid in American money. In the same way, if 95% of coins were the Tyrian Shekel, it would be awkward to pay taxes in denarii. Particularly for farmers. Practically speaking.

It is interesting to note that the gospel of Thomas has the following instead

(100) They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “Caesar’s agents are exacting taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, give unto god the things that are god’s, and give unto me that which is mine.”

Some taxes were paid in goods and some in coin. I’m surprised that anyone would claim otherwise

Fabian Udoh’s monograph does claim that taxes were paid in agricultural production such as grain at that time.

Ofher sources-

According to Marcus Borg, in another recent book on Jesus, ‘the various tithes[22] added up to slightly over 20 per cent per year’. Then Rome added its taxes: ‘the land tax (1 per cent of its value) and crop tax (12.5 per cent of the produce)’. ‘There were other Roman taxes as well (customs, toll, and tribute): but even without them, the combined total of Jewish and Roman taxes on farmers amounted to about 35 per cent. This was a crushing amount, and would be even today’.[23]

From E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE - 66CE.

The priestly tithe was given in produce, as according to biblical law in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers.

For example,

Deuteronomy requires tithes of farm produce (‘all the yield of your seed’, 14.22) every year except the seventh (sabbatical) year, when the land was to lie fallow. Most years the people who separated the tithe of their produce enjoyed its benefit: they ate it. The food was to be taken to Jerusalem and consumed there, or, which was the usual practice, converted into money to be spent in Jerusalem as the one who tithed wished: ‘oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink . . .’ (Deut. 14.22–7). The purpose of the provision was to support Jerusalem financially. Every third year (probably the third and sixth years of the seven year cycle) the tithe was to be given to support the Levites and the needy (Deut. 14.27–9; 26.12f.).

Leviticus, however, states that ‘all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord’s’ (27.30). ‘The Lord’s’ most naturally means that it belongs to the priests. The only other way of giving something to the Lord was to burn it, and the tithe was not destined to be offered in this way. Leviticus proceeds to state that one of every ten animals owned ‘shall be holy to the Lord’ (27.32). In the first century, as we shall see below, ‘holy to’ was not taken to mean that the animal was given to the temple, but rather that it was eaten in purity.

In Numbers there is a still different understanding of the tithe. It went to the Levites, who in turn paid a tithe of the tithe to the priests. The Levitical tithe provided food for the Levites and their families: it was not eaten in the temple (Num. 18.21–32). Numbers mentions neither the poor nor the consumption of the tithe by those who produce it. The situation is the same in Nehemiah: the Levites receive the tithes, pay a tenth to the priests, and keep the rest (Neh. 10.37b–9; cf. 13.5).

E. P. Sanders again.

So Sanders also agrees taxation was given in produce.

How? I don’t follow your logic here at all.

If the taxes were not in dernarii, and were taken in produce, it would be odd for Matthew, a tax collector, to have written wrongly about the tale of giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

I was fascinated by your link. The article came close to actually explaining the key issue with the lake/sea translation ambiguity which was absent in Attic Greek but very much a reality in the heavily Septuagint influenced language (which spilled into the Koine Greek of the land of the Jews in the first century.) The LXX has many flaws but like any other “standard”, its eccentricities—such as preserving the sea/lake ambiguity which exists in Hebrew but not in Attic Greek—left its mark on the Koine Greek of the New Testament. In grad school I was very much impressed with the work of Maximilian Zerwick in explaining the many Semiticisms pervading the Koine Greek of the New Testament. We can argue about what the vernacular language should have said but tradition and common usage doesn’t necessarily follow our preferences.

Did you have any thoughts on the similarity between Jesus calming the storm and Homer’s The Odyssey, which every scribe at the time would have trained their teeth on?

Specifically -

Odyssey 10.1-69

  1. Odysseus’s crew boarded and sat down.

  2. On a floating island Odysseus told stories to Aeolus

  3. After a month he took his leave, boarded, and sailed with 12 ships

  4. Odysseus slept

  5. The greedy crew opened sack, “All the winds rushed out.”

  6. The crew groaned.

  7. Odysseus woke and gave up hope

  8. Odysseus complained of his crew’s folly.

  9. Aeolus was master of the winds.

Then compare with

Mark 4:35-41

  1. Jesus boarded and sat down to teach

  2. On a floating boat Jesus told his stories to the crowds

  3. When it was late, he took his leave; “Other boats were with him.”

  4. Jesus slept.

  5. A storm arose: “[A]nd there was a great gale of wind.”

  6. The disciples were helpless and afraid.

  7. Jesus awoke and stilled the storm

  8. Jesus rebuked his disciples for lack of faith.

  9. Jesus was master of the winds and sea.

There is a bit more analysis you could read at

http://www.ibiblio.org/GMark/afr/HomerorNotHomer.htm

There are more miracle parallels that one can find. For example, Seutonius wrote that Emperor Vespasian cured the blind using his spit.

Yes, in modern English we tend to think of lakes as small and calm while seas are much larger (and saltier) but we can’t necessarily impose our modern English semantic domains on the languages of the first century. Back in the 1960’s I feared drowning on a tiny Midwestern lake when a sudden storm gave me the fright of my life.

The argument is not solely about sea vs lake, although sea vs lake is a part of the argument;

As noted in the link, other sources do not call it a sea;

Like English, Greek and Latin did distinguish between lakes ( limne ) and oceans ( thalassa ). Josephus variously referred to the lake as the lake of Gennesar , the lake of Gennesaritis , or the lake of Tiberias . Pliny the Elder referred to it as lake of Gennesaret or Taricheae in his encyclopedia, Natural History . Strabo called it the lake of Gennesaritis ¹ in his opus Geography .

Porphyry’s argument included the fact given the rather small size of the lake, it would be odd to think that the disciples would be on it for hours (9+ hrs) given it takes much less time to cross it, and given the lake is generally peaceful and whitecaps unknown on the peaceful lake, the story of Jesus calming a storm on a peaceful small lake is grossly incongruous.

What we do know, from science, is that how severe a storm can be is dependent on the size of the sea or lake.

Waves will continue to grow as long as there is a net addition of energy to them. Their height will increase as a function of wind speed and duration and the distance over which it blows (fetch). Most lakes are so small that fetch considerations are unimportant.

From Lake - Surface Waves, Circulation, Ecosystems | Britannica

My apologies for just now getting around to commenting on a post from four days ago but I found it very interesting and worthy of some dissection.

That is more than fine given the time of the year.
Discussion is also useful as iron sharpens iron.

47

There is a large difference. There is much more evidence to work with in the natural sciences, and so it is much more difficult to defend fringe views. In contrast, one’s presuppositions can have a greater influence in the fields of ancient history and NT studies. Thus, believing that science supports a 6,000-year-old universe is a much, much more fringe view compared to believing that say, Paul actually wrote Ephesians. Unsurprisingly, within the world of NT studies trends change pretty frequently compared to science. For example, in the last two decades, Mark Goodacre has gradually popularized the previously minority position that Q doesn’t exist. As far as I know, he has done this not based on any new manuscript evidence or other empirical data, but mainly just arguments. Too bad for those who believed in Q to the point of making a critical edition of it just twenty years ago.

In general, there aren’t many things that virtually all NT scholars agree on. This blog post about consensus within NT studies is worth reading.

Of course. If one spends all their time reading creationist materials, it is more likely that one becomes a creationist. If one spends all their time reading communist literature, it is more likely that one becomes a convinced communist. Similarly, whether one reads more critical or conservative scholars regarding the NT certainly can influence one’s personal view. So to some extent I pre-determine my viewpoint by my reading decisions alone. So how should I decide which type of books to read?

I’m baffled why you call Sanders an evangelical, given that he explicitly identifies as a liberal Protestant (Jesus and Judaism (1985), p. 333-334):

The relationships between history and theology are very complex, and I shall make no poor effort to delve into a vast and difficult subject here. I have been engaged for some years in the effort to free history and exegesis from the control of theology; that is, from being obligated to come to certain conclusions which are pre-determined by theological commitment, and one sees this effort being continued here. This is a very simple task, but I regard it as essential for a more complex enterprise. Iaim to be only a historian and an exegete. But, since I have criticized so many for having their ‘history’ and ‘exegesis’ dictated by theology, the reader may well wonder how well ‘my’ Jesus squares with my theological heritage. I can explain simply: I am a liberal, modern, secularized Protestant, brought up in a church dominated by low christology and the social gospel. I am proud of the things that that religious tradition stands for. I am not bold enough, however, to suppose that Jesus came to establish it, or that he died for the sake of its principles.

The whole paragraph is worth reading. Sanders admits that theology and history have often been coupled together. Sure, one can try to “decouple” them (as Sanders and many others try), but the fact that there have been competing incompatible viewpoints even among many distinguished critical scholars themselves tell me that it’s a very different field from say, particle physics.

Good for you, but I’ll be honest that as I said, I’m generally more interested in philosophical and systematic theology rather than biblical studies, so throwing a bunch of critical NT or OT scholarship at me is just generally not going to really move me much.

He’s clearly being metaphorical. Moving mountains was a common proverb at the time to indicate something impossible, and this is present even in the Bible (e.g. Isa. 40:4, 54:10, 1 Cor 13:2). I take Jesus as saying that faithful prayer can accomplish things previously thought impossible. However, I don’t see him as saying that faithful prayer can accomplish literally anything and everything the person prays for. This becomes more apparent if you look at Jesus’ life and teachings as a whole, as well as the whole Bible. Even Jesus himself prayed at Gethsemane to have his cup of suffering taken away from him, but that was not granted. Did Jesus not have enough faith? No, of course not. Paul was inflicted with a “thorn” in his flesh and despite his prayers, God refused to take it away from him (2 Cor. 12:7-10). Does that mean Paul didn’t have enough faith? No, of course not. God’s will is greater than ours, and sometimes God simply says no to our prayers. The God of the Bible is not a mere vending machine to grant all your wants and dreams if you insert enough “faith coins”. In fact, God has already granted us more than anything we deserve by sending his Son to die for us, such that we can obtain eternal life.

What do you think Jesus meant in this parable? Do you think ancient people were so stupid that they all thought that if you prayed hard enough, any mountain would inexorably and literally be moved?

48

Witchdoc didn’t claim this, so why bring it up?

I don’t think this is an appropriate example. Jesus knew he was supposed to die for the sake of humanity and he was troubled about the immense suffering he was going to face. It was never a matter of having faith, because he could have abandoned his plan at any time, but he decided not to.

No one knows what Paul suffered, but he certainly wasn’t on a ventilator fighting for his life. I know someone who went on mechanical ventilation for a week and it was a harrowing experience for her. A God who wouldn’t spare his child of that level of pain seems is just mean.

Thousands of US citizens including Christians are on ventilators. What is great about God’s will to allow them suffer horribly in that condition?

There is nothing stopping God from keeping Christians in good health now and granting them eternal life in the future. More excuses for God’s lack of interference.

49

I never implied God was a cosmic vending machine.

Traditionally, I was taught Jesus/God would answer prayers according to their will.

Is not curing Christians praying fervently about covid-19 according to God’s will?

What do you think Jesus meant by the passage?

What sort of prayers does God answer?

I have asked this before. Is not the prayer, and the Christian God not like the garage dragon?

In what sense can you say God answers my prayer any different than if I prayed to my phone?

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

Again, in what sense can we know God is present today, unlike a fire breathing incorporeal invisble dragon?

50

I already explained how I understood the passage. I think it’s your turn to explain it. Did you even bother reading my explanation? I don’t think this conversation can be very productive if I write earnest, thoughtful answers to your incessant questioning, and you do not meaningfully engage with it.

God certainly wants us to keep praying about all things, including COVID-19. But I personally don’t know how God has answered all the various prayers related to COVID-19. Certainly some of those prayers ask for mutually exclusive things, so if God wants to answer “yes” to one, he has to answer “no” to the other. Have you ever considered that?

You seem to imply that the fact that there are many cases of COVID in America means that God is not sufficiently answering everyone’s prayers. But how do you know? Do you have a record of every prayer made? Did you happen to get a copy of God’s plan for the people involved in all the prayers related to COVID-19? Do you have the algorithm that God should follow in order to satisfy your idea of what God should do? Can you justify that algorithm?

All kinds of prayers.

Your phone is nothing more than a human artifact, an idol of “silver and gold, made by human hands” (Ps. 115:4). But God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, ipsum esse subsistens, the One who Is, the ultimate source and standard of goodness, beauty, and truth. He is not just one object among many others, like your phone. He is the Creator, Ruler, and King of the universe. And unlike your phone, God loves you and calls out for everyone to believe in Him and enter into a relationship with Him through his Son Jesus Christ. Praying is one way that believers maintain and build a relationship with God. Asking God to answer one’s prayer is one of those aspects, but fundamentally prayer is about communing with God, not asking for things. I hope we agree that it would be disrespectful and unloving, for example, if you talked with your parents primarily for the purpose of asking them for money and judged the usefulness of your chats on that metric.

The problem is that you’re still seeing prayer as something that is primarily supposed to benefit you. That’s what I would call man-centered religion. Many forms of Christianity also succumb to this temptation, presenting Christianity as a quick way to go to heaven and escape hell. But that misses the point. As I said earlier, a good deed (such as prayer) done with the wrong motivation is not truly good. God wants us to worship Him because of who He is, not what benefit it gives us. He created us to worship Him!

One way we can know that God exists is through natural theology. I would recommend the following books as an introduction to the topic:

1 Like
51

By the way, the fire-breathing dragon example just completely misunderstands the nature of God and the point of theology in general. There are just so many wrong assumptions in there that I don’t even know how to begin. I really don’t have time to write another thousand word essay to explain why it’s wrongheaded. Even if you want to remain an atheist or agnostic, I would hope that you would at least move on from these New Atheist caricatures of what theologians are talking about. I think that these misunderstandings about who God is (and how He is utterly incomparable to a phone) makes it hard for us to have a productive conversation about prayer.

It seems that you’ve read a lot about biblical studies, but I don’t know if you have read nearly as much about philosophy and natural theology. In addition, while I don’t know the details of your previous “fundamentalist evangelical” background, this is rarely taught in most evangelical churches, so it might be interesting and new to you. The three books by Feser above are a good place to start.

2 Likes
52

The fact that your God says yes to some prayers and no or maybe later to others covers all scenarios, and is indistinguishable from me praying to my phone. My phone, too, will answer yes, no or maybe later.

You seem to imply that the fact that there are many cases of COVID in America means that God is not sufficiently answering everyone’s prayers. But how do you know? Do you have a record of every prayer made? Did you happen to get a copy of God’s plan for the people involved in all the prayers related to COVID-19? Do you have the algorithm that God should follow in order to satisfy your idea of what God should do? Can you justify that algorithm?

It is an indictment that for a relatively more Christian country, America is prone to conspiracy theories, corruption, disrespect for others and authorities, and “me first” society.

The problem is that you’re still seeing prayer as something that is primarily supposed to benefit you . That’s what I would call man-centered religion. Many forms of Christianity also succumb to this temptation, presenting Christianity as a quick way to go to heaven and escape hell. But that misses the point. As I said earlier, a good deed (such as prayer) done with the wrong motivation is not truly good. God wants us to worship Him because of who He is, not what benefit it gives us . He created us to worship Him!

How do you know what I prayed for? When I was Christian, I often prayed for others.

It is an interesting observation of mine that quite a few of my very Christian friends apparently had dreams they believed, nay, absolutely convinced were from God, yet turned out very untrue.

Like prayer, it appears that dreams from God were either true or not true - indistinguishable from a non-Christian’s.

One way we can know that God exists is through natural theology. I would recommend the following books as an introduction to the topic:

There are some problems with natural theology and general revelation.

Firstly, general revelation does not point to a specific religion.

Secondly, what God has revealed through nature has many conflicts in the bible.

Specifically -
a) The bible says to stone a woman who does not bleed on first sex. Empirical science and gynaecology has demonstrated that only 1/3rd of women bleed on first sex. I wonder how many innocent women have been stoned. Can a divinely inspired, special revelation book be so grossly wrong, causing the stoning of innocent women?

b) The bible says people are made male and female, and condemns homosexuality. It makes no mention of androgeonous, intersex, babies born with ambiguous genitalia who are assigned gender at birth, and people who are physically one gender but karyotypically or genotypically another, or men with brains more like women than men and women with brains more like male brains than female brains.

Thirdly, 5000 NDEs collated by a MD at www.nderf.org does NOT point to a Christian God.

It seems that you’ve read a lot about biblical studies, but I don’t know if you have read nearly as much about philosophy and natural theology

I have read some - William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Chesterton, Schaeffer, Ratzinger, Moreland. Of Christian writers in general - too many to count really.

Like I have mentioned before, natural theology cannot tell you which God.

You know, it wasn’t too long ago I would have never imagined I am where I am now. The first 30 years of my life, utterly devoted and generally quite convinced that Christianity was the One True Religion.

Yet here I am. As Andrew Streidel said, “The Road to Atheism is Littered with Bibles Read Cover to Cover”.

I think you need to study your bible a bit more, which I’m sure you’ll agree with me on. Today, I find studying the bible as an ex-Christian surprisingly even more fun than when I was a Christian (I have about 5000+ annotations to my bible in the last 5 years).

Regarding Feser and books - how about we make a deal. You read one book of my choosing, and I’ll read one of yours?

2 Likes
53

Gods and phones are human inventions. That’s why there are different types or brands.

2 Likes
54

Just because people have different views about God (many of them incorrect), does not mean that there is not a real God who could be known. The fact that there are various incorrect views about God means that humans are finite beings and thus cannot fully understand the infinite on this side of heaven. But we can have some correct views on who God is, based on how God has revealed Himself to us through the Bible and through His incarnate son, Jesus.

55

I am also frustrated and deeply saddened by the conspiracy theories and “me first” thinking in this country, but those ideas are not unique to America, nor are they only held by Christians, in particular. Also, not all Americans are Christians and not all Christians believe in conspiracy theories. Thus, your argument saying that those things occurring in America condemn Christianity does not hold.

What those things do clearly demonstrate is the truth of the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man. Christian theology teaches that even people trying to follow Jesus fail. We cannot succeed in doing good and doing God’s will without God’s help. That is why the Christian faith is one that leads to humility, a constant reassessment of oneself and one’s motives. One of the aspects of Christian prayer is to reflect on where we fall short and where we sin, to repent, and to ask God for forgiveness and for help in doing better. This reflects the point that Dan was making about prayer: prayer is a way of us connecting with God and being ourselves changed by God. Prayer is not just about asking for things to happen for us in the here and now.

1 Like
56

Interesting, how can you know if someone has incorrect view of God?

How do we even know there is an infinite on the other side of heaven?

How do we know the Bible is God’s revealed word and not the Koran or some other Holy Book?

1 Like
57

As a Christian, I personally would say that views conflicting Jesus’ teachings in the Bible or that conflict with what God says about Himself in the Bible are incorrect. Of course, people of other faiths would have different opinions, but all views cannot be correct, some of them need to be wrong and others can be true.

Jesus’s resurrection shows us that there is life after death. The Bible and Jesus’ teachings also affirm that to be true.

The Bible is the only book that tells me the truth about myself and about humanity: we are all clearly depraved. This doctrine of the depravity of man is the most true teaching, clearly evident and observable by looking at human society throughout all history and also today. People fall short of God’s perfection even when we try our best. Thus, good deeds will not save us. Only God Himself acting on our behalf can save us from ourselves. God’s will to create us and to save us at great cost and personal sacrifice to Himself demonstrates God’s perfect love, righteousness, justice, and mercy. That is the God I choose to follow. That is the God who can change my life: by telling me the truth about myself and showing me that a new and different life is possible with Him. No other religion teaches those truths about humanity. No other religion reveals God’s character in that way.

58

Certainly not all, or tell me why he has refused to answer prayer requests to regrow the limbs of amputees or repair the defective genes in sickle-cell patients?

59

Many Nigerian Christians actually believe Bill Gates is a demonic ambassador trying to pull them into the Kingdom of Satan through his microchipped vaccines. Its appalling that Christians would even by into this sort of falsehood without good evidence.

60

I agree that is an appalling and sad example of the depravity of man. Christians are not immune from that doctrine. Even Christians can have incorrect beliefs. Clearly, those particular conspiracy theories are not taught in the Bible.

61

God’s ability to answer “all kinds of prayers” does not mean that He answers “yes” to every single prayer. Go back and read what Dan and I wrote about the purpose of prayer. Prayer draws people into relationship with God and prayer helps change people, bringing them closer into God’s will. Prayer also gives us time for reflection and can bring us into a place of gratitude for everything that God has done for us.

Jesus did not heal every sick person on earth (yet), but He demonstrated His power as a healer on many occasions. God promises that in heaven there will not be any more suffering and people’s bodies will be restored to full health. But even now some people do see answers to their prayers for healing.

This woman praises God for answering her prayers to that affect. She is grateful to God for providing recent science advancements to correct her sickle-cell genes.

“It was just my religion that kind of kept me going,” Gray says.

“I’m spiritual. And it’s something I prayed about,” she says. “And just the way everything happened for me, I just feel like it was fate for me to be here. So I just believe that God is doing this for me.”

Gray knows this is just the beginning. But she’s happy things are going well so far.
“It’s amazing to have a chance at a different type of life,” Gray says. “It’s a miracle. When you pray and ask God for something for so long, all you have left is hope.”

Gray has already started doing things she could never do before, such as go to one of her son’s football games for the first time.
“I don’t really want anything extravagant,” she says. “I just want a simple life with my family and the people who I love and people that love me — and just live, you know?” Gray says. “This could be the beginning of something special.”

Gray is hopeful that the treatment will continue to work. “Not just for me, but for other people, this would be mind-blowing,” she says. “Oh my God. I can’t imagine the lives that could be saved if this thing actually works.”

Prayers can be answered in many different types of ways.

Just a few months ago, Carolina’s longtime prayer was answered as the CURE Hospital, along with partners Seeds of Dignity and the Limb Kind Foundation, was able to fit Cyndi with a prosthetic leg for the first time in her life! The leg could not come at a better time as she walks to school every day, and recently changed to a different school, this one further in distance than the first. “This is an answered prayer!” Carolina told the CURE staff. “Cyndi’s physical appearance doesn’t matter to me. She’s my child, and I accept her. But I’ve been praying for someone to provide a prosthesis for her leg so she doesn’t need to hop long distance.”