Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic

Control isn’t quite the right word. The point I am trying to make is that if God creates me, then he makes the decision for me by making me in a certain way. For example, if there is a choice between pumpkin and apple pie, I will pick the one that I prefer, lets say pumpkin. But why do I prefer pumpkin pie over apple pie? Do I not prefer pumpkin pie over apple pie becuase God made me that way? If not, where did my preference for pumpkin pie arise from?

So while I may be autonomous, the process by which I make decisions was determined soley by God. By choosing, and defining the way in which I make decisions, it is God who made the choice of pumpkin pie.

Its analogous to a computer program. Even if I design a program to be sentient, and give it free reign to make choices, the result is still completely dependent on my programming choices. Thus, it is not the programs AI that determines the outcome, it is the programmer.

Why didn’t you just ask that question to begin with? Before answering it, may we move it from the teleological to the theological? Any problem with that? Will you at least agree that in order to discuss a Christian view of freewill, we need to frame it in theological terms? “What difference does it make?” you may ask. Well, it makes a difference because a brain prefering pumpkin over apple is fundamentally a different mechanism from a spirit prefering good over evil. Christianity considers man to be both: he is both flesh and spirit. As Jesus teaches, flesh is born of flesh and spirit is born of spirit. If you will agree that it makes sense to discuss this issue in terms of man’s essence rather than his existence, then I’ll be happy to explain to you where your aesthetical taste comes from. Otherwise, the discussion is a waste of your time and mine. We’ve already covered the trivial physical crap over and over.

You have negelected to consider my experience. Let me ask you this. If you witnessed the bear making the tracks with your own eyes, what confidence level — compared to the confidence level of sleuthing the telltale signs — would you have in telling others that that is what happened?

You’re assuming this, even though it’s what you intend to prove - a classic petito.

Again, what grounds do you have for this assertion? Why is it impossible for a (human) programmer to write a program the output of which doesn’t depend on the programmer’s choices? This is a necessary feature of a working AI system, after all.

I’m not making the claim that this isn’t impossible - I don’t know enough about cognitive science and the theoretical aspects of AI to comment. But you’re making the claim that it has to be impossible, so I’m afraid the onus is on you to justify this claim.

Hey Reply. I’m a little late to the party, but I have some thoughts for you. I assume you’re still lurking on your own thread.

With all due respect, I think you’re approaching the question from the wrong angle. I should disclose up front that I’m an atheist (some would call me a strong agnostic, since I don’t claim to be able to prove God doesn’t exist), but I know many intelligent, thinking Christians and the way they come to that belief is rather different from the path laid out in your OP.

Let’s start with the NT. Where did it come from? Mainstream Bible scholarship is that there was this fellow Joshua who did some remarkable things. After he was crucified, some of his followers continued to spread the Good News of his ministry, passing along by word of mouth his teachings and stories about his life. This process continued for many decades, at which point the canonical Gospels were written down. Were they divinely inspired, in the sense of being more-or-less dictated by God? Few Bible scholars I’ve read think so. Rather, this was just ordinary men doing their best to preserve a remarkable story. Doesn’t mean the story didn’t happen. The Revolutionary War happened, even though all the accounts of it were written by ordinary men.

Move next to the interplay between NT and OT. Many of the issues you identify bother me also, but they’re side issues. Understand that the OT is also just a human compilation of teachings and stories passed along by word of mouth, only in this case the period of oral transmission was centuries rather than decades. Even when I was a Christian, I didn’t think the OT told us much about God. Rather, it tells us a lot about the people who transmitted and eventually wrote down the stories. (Ken Davis’ Who Wrote The Bible is particularly good on this topic.) Anyhoo, the nexus between NT and OT is simple. A major tenet of Christianity is that Joshua and his ministry fulfilled various prophesies in the OT. Personally, I think a lot of the prophesies are strained and I’m suspicious that some of the fulfillments (perhaps all) are mere storytelling, but that’s the connection.

The question of whether to become a Christian, then, is simply a matter of whether you think Joshua was the Son of God and was crucified for our sins. The NT story doesn’t need to be accurate in every respect for that to be true. Indeed, many Bible scholars (though not most) don’t even accept the physical resurrection. (Doesn’t appear in the earliest extant copies of Mark.) Theologically, a spiritual resurrection is plenty good enough. Nor, IMHO, do the array of issues since interjected by apologists and skeptics matter much. The cosmological proof satisfies those who want to believe and doesn’t those who don’t. It’s a side issue. Free will and determinism is impossible to resolve. Great minds have struggled with that one for millennia. None of us here are likely to pull it off. In the meantime, you have to make a decision.

In closing, I’m going to interject three issues (on which others are of course welcome to comment) which explain why I come out the other way. YMMV. First, what reason do we have to believe the NT story is true? Stated a little differently, what’s the difference (if any) between Christian faith, on the one hand, and Muslim faith, Hindu faith, Buddhist faith (not a religion in the Western sense, but fills the same niche), Chinese ancestor-worship faith (ditto), Mormon faith, Hellenic faith, etc. on the other. Second, by what power or principle was God required to sacrifice his only Son to extend grace to the world. I understand the conceptual need for grace - have issues with it, but understand - it’s the sacrifice that baffles me. I mean, he’s God. To whom is He sacrificing his Son? Himself? And let’s remember the Trinity, so God is actually sacrificing a part of Himself to another part of Himself and accepting that as vicarious atonement for mankind’s sins. That makes my brain hurt. Third, why would God make belief in a story the touchstone of grace, as opposed to, say, striving honestly in one’s heart to live by His commandments to the extent of one’s ability. (Being God, he’d know the truth of it, not just what you proclaim to your fellow sinners.) Thing is, I can see how belief in the story was important to the religion’s founders. Without belief, they’d have been out of business. But strikes me as a very un-Godlike was to go about dispensing salvation.

Goodness knows there’s lots more to this topic. But that’s my two cents worth.

Yes. Think of whom you love so much that you will put down your own son right now for their sake.

You have a lot more confidence in your internal experiences than I do in mine.

This leads us back to the “Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins” debate. Whether or not Jesus knew he was coming back, God certainly new, so any atheist martyr, convinced he was going to die forever for a cause, gets a lot more credit in my book than Jesus.

Internal experience? What does that mean, a daydream or something? As I said before, I’m not schizophrenic.

That’s a surprising thing to see, given your prior response. Jesus taught that men, including the Son of Man, are dual creatures — born of both water (flesh) and spirit (God). The man Who gave up His life was fully man, with all the same internal struggles that haunt us all. His only assurance was His faith in His Father.

[QUOTE=PBear42]

Joshua? You fought the battle of Jerico Joshua?

Ummmm… you might wanna check your list of prophets. It kinda affects your credibility when you get the main charecters wrong.

More usually transcribed “Yeshua”. The Hebrew, rather than the Latin, form of Our Saviour’s given name.

Ahhhhhhh I’ve heard that reference. Does that mean Joshua is a legitimate name for Jesus?

Yes. The Hebrew name for both individuals - the sucessor to Moses and the son of Mary and Joseph - is the same. I believe the most literal transliteration of the Hebrew is “Yahowshuwa”. It’s interesting to note that the KJV transliterates the Greek “ἰησοῖ”, where it’s referring to the sucessor of Moses, as “Jesus” in Acts 7:44-45. “Joshua” is used in the Old Testament because it’s transliterated directly from the Hebrew; the same Greek word, “ἰησοῖ”, is used of Joshua in the Septuagint.

In the correlation between an internal experience and the outside world. Mack’s subjects may have believed that they were abducted by aliens, but that doesn’t mean that they were. If you mean you have total confidence that you had an experience, internally, fine. If you have 100% confidence that your experience corresponds to something outside your skull, then I think your confidence is misplaced.

Your quote was about God’s feelings, not Jesus. No matter what Jesus thought, (and he predicted the resurrection, didn’t he?) God knew (not new :smack: ) that Jesus would be on his right hand real soon.

Course when I used to be a God believer, I thought and was taught that God can save us just fine by himself, with no intermediaries, but that is a different debate entirely.

Three things:

One: Yes, Tevildo and cosmosdan, that’s what I meant by Joshua. Sorry for the confusion. It’s my shorthand way of differentiating the authentic-historical-person-at-the-bottom-of-all-this from the Gospel Jesus. Some people consider those the same thing. I don’t, so it’s useful to have two labels.

Two: Liberal, you answered only the rhetorical question. Why God chose to extend grace to his wayward creation is well known (John 3:16). Doesn’t explain why He had to sacrifice his Son to Himself to do so. Besides, as Voyager notes, sending your Son to Earth and then bringing Him home again isn’t really a sacrifice. And if one accepts the Trinity, the “sacrifice” becomes even more dubious.

Three: I got the title of Ken Davis’ book wrong. (Was thinking about linking another book with that title, then decided against it.) The correct title is Don’t Know Much About The Bible. Davis is a good example, btw, of a thinking Christian who doesn’t get hung up over inerrancy.

Who says He had to? I cannot imagine a single logical deontic assertion about God. He simply chose to because of His own aesthetical essence. He found it to be edifying that His Son, in one act, would satisfy all sacrificial requirements for all time. It was a triumph of aesthetics over ethics.

Oh sure, I agree — if your son is attached to the end of a fishing line. But if he is allowed to make his own decisions and might decide that your will is not his own, then you’ve lost a son.

But if one accepts the duality of man — flesh and spirit, Son of Man and Son of God — it becomes perfectly sensible, as I explained already.

What Tevildo said. Incidentally, there is a very sweet movie called Joshua. The main character’s identity would not be mysterious to those in the know, but by the end of the film, everyone knows who he is.

There is no inside or outside. What does it take to convince you that metaphysical matters are, well, metaphysical? Jesus was asked just exactly where this Kingdom is that He keeps talking about, and His response was that you would not find it here or there, but within you. And He didn’t mean inside your veins or anything like that. He meant within your essence — the you that preceeded existence. (And before you discard that notion out of hand, Sartre was not the only philosopher who ever lived.)