My problem with Christianity

[hefdaddy42]

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?

Kind of.  It's complicated.

I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no".  Would you mind explaining?

In the living Jesus now, I see the reflection of everything that God is.  But I don't think Jesus was pre-existent, and I don't think that Jesus was of the divine substance at any point prior to his resurrection.

And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?

When he was on earth, walking around and teaching?  Yes.  But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.

Well, I guess the natural follow-up question is, how do you decide what is God's teaching and what is man's teaching?  For example, if we assume that 50% of Jesus' sayings in the Bible were accurate, and 50% were fabricated, how do you know what is an what isn't?

That's not a simple answer, and there are volumes and volumes of scholarly research devoted to that very question.

[Ħ]

I just finished The God Delusion.  I basically got two things from it:

1.  The argument from complexity of design.  Dawkins assumes that a designer must be more complex than his design.  The present universe is very improbable due to its complexity.  If this universe was designed, then the designer must be even more improbable.  Therefore, God probably does not exist.

There are two problems I have with it.  First, Dawkins assumes (and admits he assumes) that God is subject to scientific principles and can be scientifically analyzed, just like everything else we know in the material world.  That seems like a jump.  Second, if Dawkins assumption is true, then all he has really shown is that a certain type of God is improbable: the God that created everything in a moment of time.  He hasn't shown that a "progressive creationist" God is improbable, a type of God that created a universe with very simple principles from which emerges complexity.

2. A warning to being religious.  From violence to indoctrination of children, there are a number of problems that can arise from any religion.  I don't disagree with him.  I don't think that these characteristics are at all relevant to determining the truth of them, but I do think that some religions are "worse" than atheism.  I realize that in my journey, I need to be very careful in coming to whatever belief I end up coming to.

So, with that book out of the way, does anyone have any recommendations or ideas to where I should go next?

Here's my quick brainstorm:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion.
- A theist book.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
- The Quran.
- A book by Bart Ehrman.

[El JoNNo]

I just finished The God Delusion.  I basically got two things from it:

1.  The argument from complexity of design.  Dawkins assumes that a designer must be more complex than his design.  The present universe is very improbable due to its complexity.  If this universe was designed, then the designer must be even more improbable.  Therefore, God probably does not exist.

There are two problems I have with it.  First, Dawkins assumes (and admits he assumes) that God is subject to scientific principles and can be scientifically analyzed, just like everything else we know in the material world.  That seems like a jump.  Second, if Dawkins assumption is true, then all he has really shown is that a certain type of God is improbable: the God that created everything in a moment of time.  He hasn't shown that a "progressive creationist" God is improbable, a type of God that created a universe with very simple principles from which emerges complexity.

2. A warning to being religious.  From violence to indoctrination of children, there are a number of problems that can arise from any religion.  I don't disagree with him.  I don't think that these characteristics are at all relevant to determining the truth of them, but I do think that some religions are "worse" than atheism.  I realize that in my journey, I need to be very careful in coming to whatever belief I end up coming to.

So, with that book out of the way, does anyone have any recommendations or ideas to where I should go next?

Here's my quick brainstorm:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.
- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion.
- A theist book.
- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
- The Quran.
- A book by Bart Ehrman.

Why read books about showing the dubiousness of religion? I am an atheist and never finished the God delusion. Not because I thought it was bad but I was already aware of much what he was saying. Just read about science. Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, is a really good book.

Regarding point number one: If you maintain a deist position, no a god would not necessarily be more complex. However if you are maintaining the Christian belief it most certainly would need to be more complex. Also there is no such thing as super-nature, if it exists it is nature. 

[Ħ]

You speak as though those are immutable facts, but there are many, many knowledgable people who would disagree with a good amount of the things you said.

EDIT:  To respond more directly to what you're saying:

- When in doubt, just read it.
- The Christian God does not "certainly" need to be more complex.
- I've seen no good reason to believe something can't be above nature.

[El JoNNo]

If anyone can explain how something can exist outside of nature feel free. The term supernatural is a term for magic or a term for I don't know but something with intelligence must have done it. As far as the god complexity thing, I know many, many knowledgeable people that would agree. What is your point?

[Ħ]

The term supernatural is a term for magic or a term for I don't know but something with intelligence must have done it.

No.  "Supernatural" is a term for something above nature.

As far as the god complexity thing, I know many, many knowledgeable people that would agree. What is your point?

My point is that, to paraphrase something bosk1 said a while back, simply saying something is "most certainly" something else doesn't help your argument at all.  It's just fluff.  Why don't you tell me why the Christian God is "most certainly" too complex, rather than just saying it is so?

[Adami]

Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?

[Ħ]

Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?

That is a good point. 

Well, it's hard to know who is actually extremist until I actually check them out.  I don't want their reputation to shoo me away.  And as long as I keep in mind that their views are not the views of all members of their side, then I think that as long as I keep reading, then I'm on the right path.

[Adami]

Brother, my only suggestion would be not to try to learn from extremists on any side of the debate. If an atheist wanted to learn about Christianity, would you tell them to check out The Westboro Baptist Church?

That is a good point.  

Well, it's hard to know who is actually extremist until I actually check them out.  I don't want their reputation to shoo me away.  And as long as I keep in mind that their views are not the views of all members of their side, then I think that as long as I keep reading, then I'm on the right path.

True, but there are lots of atheists here who can show you the way around them. But if you seek out the extremists, it will prove only that your goal is find reason to disagree with them, which would render your entire explained purpose moot and futile.


When I wanted to learn about Islam, I sought out moderate islamic scholars, I didn't chat up a terrorist cell.

[contest_sanity]

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?

Kind of.  It's complicated.

I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no".  Would you mind explaining?

In the living Jesus now, I see the reflection of everything that God is.  But I don't think Jesus was pre-existent, and I don't think that Jesus was of the divine substance at any point prior to his resurrection.

What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn?  Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.

@ H: this is an article by N.T. Wright (one of the world's foremost Jesus scholars) on the issue of Jesus and the identity of God.  I think it's really illuminating:

https://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm

[hefdaddy42]

What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn?  Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.

What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"?  Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?

[contest_sanity]

What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn?  Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.

What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"?  Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?

Yes, and I should have just called it Phil. 2:5-11.  My bad.

[William Wallace]

My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?

- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.  
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.

- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels

- The Quran. - Sounds lovely

- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.

[GuineaPig]

My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.

[hefdaddy42]

What is your interpretation, then, of the Christ hymn?  Not trying to stir things up; I'm just interested.

What do you mean by "the Christ hymn"?  Are you talking about the kenosis hymn quoted by Paul?

Yes, and I should have just called it Phil. 2:5-11.  My bad.

OK.  For the convenience of everyone I will go ahead and post it here (from the NET).  Note that the hymn proper is doesn't include verse 5, but rather consists of 6-11.

2:6 who though he existed in the form of God

did not regard equality with God

as something to be grasped,

2:7 but emptied himself

by taking on the form of a slave,

by looking like other men,

and by sharing in human nature.

2:8 He humbled himself,

by becoming obedient to the point of death

– even death on a cross!

2:9 As a result God exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

2:10 so that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow

– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –

2:11 and every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.

First of all, about the text as we have it: I agree with you that it is a hymn, as do many other scholars, but this is not a universal opinion among scholars: not all see this passage as having the necessary qualities of a hymn.  But I do.  Furthermore, I think the hymn predates Paul.  I think this is one of the older pieces of writing in Christian history, and Paul uses it as an example.  I do not think this hymn is original with Paul.

The hymn can easily be broken down into two sections of three verses each:  The Condescension (or Self-Humbling) of Christ (verses 6-8) and the Exaltation of Christ (verses 9-11).  The term kenosis comes from verse 7 ("he emptied himself"), and is the key of the theology of the hymn.

Speaking of the theology of the hymn, it seems to be that, rather than clinging to his Godness, Christ humbled himself to become human and suffer death on the cross.  Therefore, God responded to this act of humility and obedience by exalting Christ above all other creation.

Clearly, the author of the hymn believed that Jesus was equivalent with God well before the events of his life on earth.  But that doesn't mean that Paul necessarily agreed (although he certainly may have), because that isn't the point Paul is making here.  His point is that Jesus humbled himself for the sake of others, and he is giving this example as a means of exhorting the Phillipians to do the same thing (see 2:1-4).  Rather than seeking their own good, Christians should work for the good of others.  The kenosis hymn isn't the only example of this that Paul uses in this letter; he claims that he himself is willing to be sacrificed for them (2:17), that Timothy seeks the interests of others rather than himself (2:19-24), and that the Phillipians' own Epaphroditus had risked everything for the sake of others (2:25-31).  Paul intends for the Phillipians to follow these worthy examples, living together in self-sacrificing love.

Do I agree with Paul's point here?  Yes, I most certainly do.  I think self-sacrificing love is the heart of Jesus's teachings.  But do I agree with the divine origins of Christ as testified in the kenosis hymn?  No, I don't.  I think that a divine origin is something that was attributed to Jesus fairly early after his death and resurrection.  I also don't think that Paul's inclusion of the hymn necessarily means that he believes in any such thing (although again, he certainly could have).  I think he is using it in its complete form because as such, it would be something that his Phillipian audience would already knew and used in their own worship.  I realize that is only one possible explanation, but is the one that seems most likely to me.

But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree.  Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth.  I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.

But hey, that's just my $0.02.

EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.

EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

[WildeSilas]

My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.

QFT

My first post in this forum, and it probably bears some background. I was a Christian for 25 years, a pastor and theology teacher for 10 of those. I've left Christianity behind over the course of the last 5 years (or rather, it has left me behind) because of some of the very doubts and issues the OP mentioned. Over the course of those 25 years I taught myself to read Hebrew and Greek well enough that I was able to discard English versions of the Bible, and spent most of my full-time job as a pastor studying Old Testament and 1st century Jewish culture and language.

I eventually came to the conclusion, after 25 years of heart-felt searching, that the historicity of the Bible was questionable at best - though I have a great deal of respect for it as a piece of literature. It is brilliantly assembled and worth the many hours I spent with it. I also found the theology to be psychologically damaging to myself and others over the course of those years, based on hundreds of hours of counseling with individuals who, at their foundation, were suffering from the long term effects of cognitive dissonance over many of the contradictory messages of Biblical theology.

I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.

And oddly enough, my questions and misgivings did indeed begin with my initial read of The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy, where Adams sticks his thumb right into the middle of so many issues that had been niggling away in the back of my brain for years. 

[Adami]

My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?

- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.  
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.

- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels

- The Quran. - Sounds lovely

- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, and if I am I apologize. But it seems that aside from the Quran you're just suggesting things that will strengthen  his christian beliefs as opposed to learning about much else.

[William Wallace]

My suggestions:
- More New Atheism books, like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. lol, why?

- A The God Delusion refutation, like The Dawkins Delusion. What's so great about Christianity? - puts bitches (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) in their designated places. D'Souza's treatment of the problem of evil, Christianity's crimes (Salem witch trials, etc.) is fantastic. Chapters on science are a little weak, but still a worthy read.  
- A theist book. - Anything by Alvin Plantiga.

- A Christian book, such as Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. - Craig Bolmberg's The historical reliability of the Gospels

- The Quran. - Sounds lovely

- A book by Bart Ehrman. - Misquoting Jesus is really good. He inadvertently debunks a lot of bad arguments against the text's reliability.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, and if I am I apologize. But it seems that aside from the Quran you're just suggesting things that will strengthen  his christian beliefs as opposed to learning about much else.

That may indeed be the effect, but I'm only suggesting categories of books he's going to read anyway. But just so I can't be accused of unfair recommendations, read any of the books written bythis guy. I vehemently disagree with almost everything he says, but he's an actual historian and a decent writer.

[yeshaberto]

Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r.  I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy.   Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon.  Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives

[rumborak]

Having your faith strengthened by reading Misquoting Jesus must require some special reading.

rumborak

[Portrucci]

My serious recommendation for the best books to understand atheism: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy.

QFT

My first post in this forum, and it probably bears some background. I was a Christian for 25 years, a pastor and theology teacher for 10 of those. I've left Christianity behind over the course of the last 5 years (or rather, it has left me behind) because of some of the very doubts and issues the OP mentioned. Over the course of those 25 years I taught myself to read Hebrew and Greek well enough that I was able to discard English versions of the Bible, and spent most of my full-time job as a pastor studying Old Testament and 1st century Jewish culture and language.

I eventually came to the conclusion, after 25 years of heart-felt searching, that the historicity of the Bible was questionable at best - though I have a great deal of respect for it as a piece of literature. It is brilliantly assembled and worth the many hours I spent with it. I also found the theology to be psychologically damaging to myself and others over the course of those years, based on hundreds of hours of counseling with individuals who, at their foundation, were suffering from the long term effects of cognitive dissonance over many of the contradictory messages of Biblical theology.

I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.

And oddly enough, my questions and misgivings did indeed begin with my initial read of The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy, where Adams sticks his thumb right into the middle of so many issues that had been niggling away in the back of my brain for years. 

Great first post. Welcome to the forums  Hopefully you can stick around for the many good P/R debates we have around here 

[William Wallace]

Having your faith strengthened by reading Misquoting Jesus must require some special reading.

rumborak

Why? Admittedly, that's not Ehrman's goal, but he does a lot of damage to some of the more fanciful arguments made against the text's reliability. He also admits that textual critics have been able to reconstruct the original readings of the NT books reasonably well.

[WildeSilas]

Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.

Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r.  I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy.   Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon.  Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives

I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches), and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.

Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"

[William Wallace]

Welcome, WildeSilas. It's always nice to see new faces, and since you know some history as well as Greek and Hebrew, that means you can add depth to our conversations.

And since you brought it up, what convinced you that you we're "just making this all up in my mind?"

[yeshaberto]

Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.

Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r.  I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy.   Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon.  Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives

I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches), and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.

Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"

I can't imagine how hard of a time that must have been for you...I know others here have been through similar experiences.  Thanks for your honesty

[AndyDT]

Thanks everyone - not sure why I didn't register here long ago. I've been lurking since the Score days. Most everyone seems like my kind of people, relatively calm and rational, even in disagreement.

Wildsilas. Welcome to the forum and p/r.  I am sad to hear of anyone losing their faith and I know it can be a challenge, so you have my sympathy.   Since we are all sharing testimonies of losing faith I only want to add that I spent 18 years without god in reckless abandon.  Since I found him though my faith has only grown over last 23 years. I constantly challenge my convictions and will continue to do so. But as job declared, I know that my redeemer lives

I wish it had worked for me, I really do. I tried so hard, and then stopped trying and just tried to be content and let it work, but in the end, I had to face the fact that despite my desperate searching, I had found nothing that wan't self-manufactured, and I really had no great gaping need in my life for anything or anyone supernatural. I'm happier than ever being a husband and father, despite the fact that I'm on a heart transplant list. You'd think a life-threatening medical problem would have driven me closer to God, but in fact, it made me face the reality of randomness and the fact that I'm very small in the context of the history of the universe (rather than the center of it, as the Bible teaches),

The bible says we don't run the universe, God does.

and that has actually brought me greater comfort and security than faith ever did. I don't understand why it works for some people and not for others, I just know that I sought hard after God for 25 years and came up empty handed in the end. It was very scary and sad to realize that at first, but once I got through the shock of it, I came out on the other side with all the peace and contentment that I sought through faith but never found. I wouldn't go back for anything because now I feel more free than I ever imagined I could.

Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, I just find that when people are struggling either intellectually or emotionally with religious issues, it sometimes helps to take a step back and entertain the forbidden question: "What if I'm just making this all up in my mind?"

I would be making it up I think if i said I was "certain" Jesus was the son of God or that I'm certain that "life is eternal" as the buddhists say. But isn't the point that we are making it all up in our minds anyway and that we can't perceive or know everything on a thought level so the question of "what is reality?" remains.

[AndyDT]

But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree.  Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth.  I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.

But hey, that's just my $0.02.

EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.

EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

If he was resurrected, how is he not divine?

[the Catfishman]

I was able to sift though all of this by trying to remove the idea of God from the equation of my life. Trying to interpret and view my experiences through the lens of the Bible, and trying to reconcile them with it's teachings and doctrines, was very confusing and frustrating. However, when I simply considered that there may be no God at all, suddenly the cause and effect of almost every puzzling experience became clear and made total sense.

Although I was never so deep into Christianity as you were my experience was pretty much the same. It was such a liberating feeling that the world suddenly made so much more sense once you accept that there is no God, like a veil had been lifted from my eyes.

[reo73]

My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.

BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

[Quadrochosis]

So because we can't understand God completely we should just listen to a 2000+ year old book which claims to?

[rumborak]

My problem with the whole Atheistic view of science and complexity and God is that it presumes that man is able to understand exactly who God would be, if he existed, by using our own limited knowledge of understanding and rejecting that there may be levels of understanding well beyond what we can even bear to know as humans.  It stands to reason that if there is a God that is the creator of the universe and all life that dwells within then this God would be more complex in ways that humans could never conceive by their own understanding.  To say that we can is the ultimate display of self-importance and arrogance.
BTW...I hear "Reason For God" by Tim Keller is a great book.

I don't follow that reasoning at all actually. There is no requirement for a Creator to be in any way complex. Let's assume for a second that the creation of a universe fell naturally out of Quantum Mechanics (which some say it actually does, see Brian Greene's latest book). Quantum Mechanics is definitely "understandable" by humans.
The conclusion that something big has to have been created by something complex is IMHO a very erroneous conclusion. I for one expect the final explanation of physics (if there is one) to be very simplistic. Maybe not intuitive, but simple. I know Christians tend to be suckers for big things that steer your life, but I think the eventual reality will be vastly different.

rumborak

[slycordinator]

As a Christian who hates it when atheist make up stuff about how Christians are, I hate it even more when a fellow believer does the same back to them.

Being an atheist doesn't say that they think we should/would know everything about God if he exists. It just says they don't believe in God.

[hefdaddy42]

But assuming that Paul DID believe in such divine origins for Jesus, I still don't agree.  Mostly because there is no record in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus ever telling anyone any such thing while he was on this earth.  I believe that all such divine statuses for Jesus are post-crucifixion attributions by his fervent followers, nothing more.

But hey, that's just my $0.02.

EDIT: @GP: especially God's Final Message To His Creation.

EDIT 2: BrotherH, I would suggest The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright.

If he was resurrected, how is he not divine?

What does that have anything to do with it?  When and if you or I are resurrected, will you or I be divine?

[rumborak]

Yeah, I don't see that either. Isn't the idea that God resurrected Jesus, not Jesus himself? (being completely aware that the Trinitarians here might see this as the same thing)

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, I don't see that either. Isn't the idea that God resurrected Jesus, not Jesus himself? (being completely aware that the Trinitarians here will see it as one and the same thing)

rumborak

That's what I think.  God raised Jesus from the dead.  Of course, this is also how Paul describes it in 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians.  It is also used thusly in 1 Peter, and in Acts, Colossians, Ephesians, etc.