Greetings -- A Freindly Atheist Who Wants to Know: Why Christ?

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi Kirby,

I don't hold a lot of the positions that many mainstream Christians do. That being said I'd be happy to discuss Christianity with you. Where would you like to start?

Thanks so much, Butch5. Do you think it’s important that people receive some reward or punishment occurring to their behavior in life after physical death? If so, why?

 

[Butch5]

Thanks so much, Butch5. Do you think it’s important that people receive some reward or punishment occurring to their behavior in life after physical death? If so, why?

I don't believe there is human life apart from the physical.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

I don't believe there is human life apart from the physical.

Interesting. You do identify as a Christian, yes?

 

[Butch5]

Interesting. You do identify as a Christian, yes?

Yes, I do. As I said, I don't hold a lot of the mainstream doctrines. After much extensive study I've found many to simply be wrong. They are the additions of men which have come down through the centuries. I believe that when we die we are dead. I do believe there will be a resurrection at the end of this age. However, that resurrection will also be physical

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Yes, I do. As I said, I don't hold a lot of the mainstream doctrines. After much extensive study I've found many to simply be wrong. They are the additions of men which have come down through the centuries. I believe that when we die we are dead. I do believe there will be a resurrection at the end of this age. However, that resurrection will also be physical

Oh, I agree. Do you see any supernatural dimension to Christianity? And am I to understand you hold yourself accountable to a standard as articulated in your creed, and it is your measuring up to that standard which is itself its own penalty or reward?

 

[Butch5]

Oh, I agree. Do you see any supernatural dimension to Christianity? And am I to understand you hold yourself accountable to a standard as articulated in your creed, and it is your measuring up to that standard which is itself its own penalty or reward?

I'm not sure what you mean by "any supernatural dimension to Christianity". My standard is the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures. As far as reward, I don't know. I mean, man is headed towards death. God tells us if we adhere to His word we can live rather than die. If that is reward, then I guess yes. If a man falls from a ship and someone throws a rope for him to grab, is that a reward? That's kind of how I see it.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

I'm not sure what you mean by "any supernatural dimension to Christianity". My standard is the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures. As far as reward, I don't know. I mean, man is headed towards death. God tells us if we adhere to His word we can live rather than die. If that is reward, then I guess yes. If a man falls from a ship and someone throws a rope for him to grab, is that a reward? That's kind of how I see it.

Sorry. Little confused: what does “live rather than die” mean in any scheme that doesn’t include an afterlife?

 

[Wnl]

Hi again Kirby, let's get down to basics if I may,
I want you to contemplate of just a small matter YOU.
Have a good look in the practical, not the spiritual.
You can't argue that you are here right.

Very simply could you give an answer to why from
birth did we have two sets of teeth and where from.
Look forward to your intellectual answer
With Love, Wnl

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi again Kirby, let's get down to basics if I may,
I want you to contemplate of just a small matter YOU.
Have a good look in the practical, not the spiritual.
You can't argue that you are here right.

Very simply could you give an answer to why from
birth did we have two sets of teeth and where from.
Look forward to your intellectual answer
With Love, Wnl

Humans, like a lot of mammals, are “diphyodonts,” meaning they develop two sets of teeth during their lifetimes. One deciduous baby set to get them started off on the right foot, and another larger, more durable permanent set. I believe this holds true for all other, non-human primates.

It’s a pretty nifty system. But I think an argument could be made it’s not ideal. Lots of other animals are very successful as monophyodonts (one set of teeth) and polyphyodonts (several).

Ar you suggesting it’s evidence for design by a deity in an act of special creation? If so, I suppose it’s possible, but then one has to accept the rest of Earth’s biological family tree has been created to look precisely what one would expect to find if diphyodontism emerged after millions of years of evolution by natural selection. Human diphyodontism is one of the most eloquent, best attested lines of evidence bearing out our close genealogical ties to the rest of the animal kingdom. In any case, other than “cool factor,” I can’t see how it’s evidence for the principle of sin and redemption through Christ. Could you please explain?

Intellectual enough?

 

[Butch5]

Sorry. Little confused: what does “live rather than die” mean in any scheme that doesn’t include an afterlife?

Hi Kirby,

Most people refer to the dead being alive in some form and call this the afterlife. I don't hold that the dead are alive, they are dead. By "live rather than die" I mean the Resurrection. In the Scriptures we're told that the dead will be raised, some to life and some to condemnation. All will be raised and judged. Some will be retain this life and other will be die a second death.

 

[Wnl]

Hi Kirby, it's nothing to do with sin.
Don't you think there is a great reasoning, a child cannot
accommodate large teeth, so God in His wisdom gave us
two sets.
Can't you get your head round this amazing truth of
intelligent design, I thought you would be blown away.
God made all things
Encouraging, you said I suppose it's possible.
I kept it simple just to make my point not mentioning
the rest of created design of ourselves.

Isaac Newton wrote,
The exquisite structure of the sun, the planets and comets,
could not have had there origin, but by a plan and absolute
dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.
With Love Wnl

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi Kirby,

Most people refer to the dead being alive in some form and call this the afterlife. I don't hold that the dead are alive, they are dead. By "live rather than die" I mean the Resurrection. In the Scriptures we're told that the dead will be raised, some to life and some to condemnation. All will be raised and judged. Some will be retain this life and other will be die a second death.

Hi, Butch5.

So you do believe in a supernatural afterlife in the specific sense of the persisting existence of one’s identity or consciousness at some point or for some duration after the physical death of the body.

(It should come as no surprise I don’t, though I'm not hidebound about it.)

If you don’t mind me asking, do you think a supernatural afterlife is a good aspect of the universe?

 

[Butch5]

Hi, Butch5.

So you do believe in a supernatural afterlife in the specific sense of the persisting existence of one’s identity or consciousness at some point or for some duration after the physical death of the body.

(It should come as no surprise I don’t, though I'm not hidebound about it.)

If you don’t mind me asking, do you think a supernatural afterlife is a good aspect of the universe?

Hi Kirby,

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatural". I don't believe in any form of life other than physical, as pertains to man. I believe that in the resurrection people will be physical just like they are now.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi Kirby, it's nothing to do with sin.
Don't you think there is a great reasoning, a child cannot
accommodate large teeth, so God in His wisdom gave us
two sets.
Can't you get your head round this amazing truth of
intelligent design, I thought you would be blown away.
God made all things
Encouraging, you said I suppose it's possible.
I kept it simple just to make my point not mentioning
the rest of created design of ourselves.

Isaac Newton wrote,
The exquisite structure of the sun, the planets and comets,
could not have had there origin, but by a plan and absolute
dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.
With Love Wnl

First, you may find it hard to believe, but I find the sheer wonder and majesty of the universe staggering. Simply staggering. Not only do I resist the notion there isn’t beauty in my understanding of it, I can’t fathom how anyone acquainted with any of its particulars, from puppies to quasars, does not see it.

As for Newton, I cut him some slack. He lived and worked in the very early beginnings of the Enlightenment. True, he was devout and religiously active. But theologians don’t cite him for his work in that discipline. He revered a God who (he calculated) was responsible for the complexities of the cosmos he could not himself unravel. The irony is he DID unravel the laws governing the fundamental force of gravity. Before that, every other “theory” of physics credited it to some mystical activity on the part of God. Newton assumed more complicated things (such as the nature of lightning and elemental physics) were God’s doing. If he had studied the trail of human knowledge that led to his own breakthroughs, he might have considered such secrets were probably also as materially mechanistic and would, some day, themselves also be worked out. I admit, it’s a pretty astounding intellectual leap to make, but he did have an astounding mind. As it is, he accepted the rest was magic and venerated God for it.

I like the basic example you use of baby teeth. I had hoped my explanation might suggest just one set of baby teeth, swell as they are, isn’t necessarily the “perfect” way to go, and to shine a light on how closely connected we are, through baby teeth and other things, to the rest of our animal kin.

Let me invoke an even simpler example: snowflakes.

I have seriously posed this question to a number of religious Christians and (to my mild surprise) I have always gotten the single same answer. It strikes me as odd. When I first thought of it I assumed I’d get some mix of “yes”s and “no”s.

Snowflakes are, as has been known since Kepler, each individually shaped. No two exactly alike (or so it is said). And they are generated in the trillions every year. My question to the religious is, does God sit down at some version of a celestial easel and draft the design of each individual snowflake? Or, instead, are the laws of nature arranged so snowflakes are automatically created whenever a certain particular set of circumstances come together and it kind of just takes care of itself, leaving God with the credit for having created such a cool system?

I have always –– ALWAYS –– gotten the latter answer. That God wrote the laws of nature that way. Okay. Assuming there is a God, I cannot agree more. This is born out in scientific analysis. Snowflakes form in structures according to very clear laws of crystallization, moisture, temperature, and atmospheric pressure. God doesn’t “make snowflakes.” He made the king of all snowflake machines: the Earth’s atmosphere.

That Creation ALSO includes the standard model of particle physics (atoms made of quark-composed protons and neutrons, electrons, etc.). It also includes the laws governing the epoch of star formation in the primordial universe, as well as the stellar life cycle and how first generation stars took hydrogen and helium and fused their atoms into more complex elements all the way up to iron. And how nothing heavier than iron existed until that first generation of stars began dying in supernovas, their “corpses” coalescing into new generations of stars, giving rise, eventually to neutron stars and, hence, neutron star-neutron star collisions, generating yet heavier elements.

Are you married? If so, do you wear a gold or platinum wedding band? If it’s gold, that gold probably came from a supernova. Mine is platinum. Almost every particle of platinum in the universe is the result of neutron star-neutron star collisions. I am wearing a bit of that on my finger as I type to you right now. AND, it is almost certain some of it came from one such collision eons ago, and other of it from a different one.

That supercalifragilisticexpialidocious snow machine (or whatever you want to call it) is the same engine behind planet formation, abiogenesis (the initiation of life) and all the evolution that followed.

See? Snow machine. Staggering.

These facts are not in any way in dispute. Now, if you are convinced there is an intelligent God behind that epochal wonder, I can respect that. I can’t even claim you are wrong. If you further insist there is an immaterial spirit or soul which goes someplace else at our physical death, and that soul is punished or rewarded according to our conduct in this world, I cannot claim I know better. All I can claim is I don’t see any evidence for it. I don’t find the Bible a convincing proof of it and the claims of people who cite other, more palpable natural, scientific evidence, so far haven’t shown me any reason to think otherwise. Including baby teeth, which (as I say) are totally cool.

I know many Christians find these perspectives haughty and arrogant. This is certainly not the feeling I sense. I feel tiny, puny, fragile and tragically perishable. I have the same morbid view of everything I love and cherish. To my thinking, it renders them all the more precious.

One last clarification, in case this hasn’t gotten across so far. I don’t believe there is no God. I simply do not believe there is one. Does that difference affect your understanding of how I see things at all? To me it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Hi Kirby,

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatural". I don't believe in any form of life other than physical, as pertains to man. I believe that in the resurrection people will be physical just like they are now.

Sorry. I use “supernatural” to describe anything that isn’t indicated by the evidence of natural science. Since there’s no scientifically documented cases of resurrection in history (Jesus, obviously, notwithstanding) and no plausible basis upon which to predict any resurrections in the future, I call resurrection “supernatural.” It’s not actually that important a distinction. Call it what you will, you are convinced resurrection in the End Times is a real aspect of the universe. Do you think that’s a good thing?

 

[Butch5]

Sorry. I use “supernatural” to describe anything that isn’t indicated by the evidence of natural science. Since there’s no scientifically documented cases of resurrection in history (Jesus, obviously, notwithstanding) and no plausible basis upon which to predict any resurrections in the future, I call resurrection “supernatural.” It’s not actually that important a distinction. Call it what you will, you are convinced resurrection in the End Times is a real aspect of the universe. Do you think that’s a good thing?

I'm convinced because it's recorded that over 500 people saw Him after He was crucified. 500 independent witnesses is pretty overwhelming evidence. I think if there were 500 witnesses to a murder it would pretty much be an open and shut case.

I do think it's good. People will be accountable for their actions.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

I'm convinced because it's recorded that over 500 people saw Him after He was crucified. 500 independent witnesses is pretty overwhelming evidence. I think if there were 500 witnesses to a murder it would pretty much be an open and shut case.

I do think it's good. People will be accountable for their actions.

I won’t try to convince you the Biblical account of Jesus’s resurrection isn’t reliable evidence. If you would like me to explain why I don’t, I can.

As for being held to account, I’m the first one to agree that this world is abidingly unjust and I acknowledge the temptation to like the idea people are held to account once they’re done here. But that natural impulse just doesn’t seem like evidence of anything other than a human desire for justice and fairness, two (to me) very natural things.

 

[Butch5]

I won’t try to convince you the Biblical account of Jesus’s resurrection isn’t reliable evidence. If you would like me to explain why I don’t, I can.

As for being held to account, I’m the first one to agree that this world is abidingly unjust and I acknowledge the temptation to like the idea people are held to account once they’re done here. But that natural impulse just doesn’t seem like evidence of anything other than a human desire for justice and fairness, two (to me) very natural things.

Sure I'd be glad to hear your reasoning.

As for being held accountable, you asked what I think. I didnt present it as evidence. It's just my opinion.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear @Kirby D. P.
After reading your last post. It came to mind a short vid from Dr. Gary Habermas on the subject of the resurrection. Hopefully, you'll find it interesting enough to reconsider your disbelief of the resurrection and so in Christ Jesus.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Sure I'd be glad to hear your reasoning.

As for being held accountable, you asked what I think. I didnt present it as evidence. It's just my opinion.

“I didnt present it as evidence. It's just my opinion.”
––Understood. My apologies.

I know this seems to missing the point, but I don’t consider the many witnesses in the gospels as individual, corroborating accounts. Nor even each of the gospels. My perspective is they all come from a single, uncorroborated source, invoking four inconsistent versions. Matthew describes multiple corpses reanimating to life and walking abroad in Jerusalem. Not a single Roman (notorious record keepers) seems to have noticed a zombie apocalypse. In my opinion details like this and disagreement of who were at the tomb and what their activities were cast doubt on the possible veracity of any of them. The one internal consistency they share is a very rich, symbolic, literary cohesion. Different interpretations upon a single theme which emphasize different core lessons. Details like the sacrifice of Jesus coinciding with Jewish Passover, the festival of the sacrifice of the Pascal lamb, and of Barabbas, whose name in Hebrew means “Son of the father,” presenting a pair of potential sacrifices, one genuine and one counterfeit, echoing the Jewish season of atonement, Yom Kippur. Before the destruction of the second temple, observance of this highest of holy days entailed the selection from all the community of two identically perfect (as possible) goats. Lots were cast and one, thus randomly chosen, was selected as a pure sacrifice to God while the other had all the year’s sins of the entire congregation scrawled on its living hide. It was then driven out, into the wilderness, carrying the people’s sins with it. This is the etymological basis for the English term “scapegoat.” The pure being is sacrificed and the sinful one is spared, a la Jesus and Barabbas.

These are all quite exquisite literary details. They speak to a very poetic notion how redemption is available to all. But they don’t seem to be a police report of factual incidents. And, honestly, I think trying to see them as such is off the mark.

While Roman sources are silent about anything described in the gospels, what we do know about the Roman administration of Jerusalem conflicts with a literal Biblical reading. It was illegal to take down a crucifixion after the victim dies. Crucifixions were horrifying acts of very public execution. Their entire purpose was propaganda, to stand as a constantly visible demonstration of the might and capriciousness of Roman law. One of the fastest ways to get yourself crucified was to take down a crucifixion.

These are some of my main reasons for seeing the gospels as a set of parables. Which (to me) makes sense since that’s exactly how Jesus SAYS he does his teaching in Matthew 13:10.

Anyway, that’s my thinking.