Questions on Christianity (Again...)

Great Debates
1

Not trying to spark turmoil, I’m just a bit confused.

Before Jesus was born, before Moses, the bible and Christianity’s role in people’s lives was inexistant, right? What happened to the Ancient Greek, the Ancient Romans & the Phoenicians? The people who lived in Mytilene and Damascus go back about 10 centuries BC. They believed in their own Gods. If God has existed forever, why didn’t he pass on his words and his existance to those who lived so long ago? Surely he should’ve pronounced himself so that humans wouldn’t go down the wrong path. Did they go to Hell for believing in other Gods, even though the Christian God was unknown to them? The bible says that Adam was created on the Sixth Day, and the Bible states that that was 6000 years ago. So how did all those other people exist? What about the dinosaurs, which existed a minimum of 65 million years ago? The oldest dated rock is between 4 and 3.8 billion years old. It has been calculated that our Planet itself is 4.6 billion years old. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old. Why did everything take so long? What’s the Christian explanation to all these questions?

(I’m an Atheist)

2

TWEEEET!

Just to pre-empt the usual run of snark: posts that do nothing but claim that Christianity (or relgion) is nonsense do not adress the OP.

Posts that quote or restate actual Christian statements on the matter, and then demonstrate perceived errors in those statements are fine.
[ /Moderating ]

3

Well, of course to some believers all that science about 4 billion years is hogwash.

Salvation before Jesus has several views.

some believe they got their chance to accept Jesus after his resurrection.

The Latter Day Saints and sundry splinter groups believe there are levels of Heaven {glories} so decent people get some reward not just the very bestest one.

4

There’s a wide variety of beliefs, not every bible based religion has the same answer. Even within the same denomination, there are wide differences. For example, it’s been often pointed out that a US Roman Catholic believes different things than an Italian Roman Catholic.

Some take the idea that the bible are stories and parables rather than actual fact. Which means anything in the bible not supported by historical research can be hand waved away as, essentially, a non-factual morality tale. From a non-believer point of view, this is probably the closest to correct.

Similarly, there’s the claim that words mean something different to God. What he calls a day may be far far longer than what we call a day, so they argue God did create the universe and humans. He just did it through the big bang and evolution. I suspect this is a fairly common belief, at least in America. I know it’s the most common explanation I’ve heard from rational believers, as opposed to the mindless masses.

Speaking of the mindless masses, quite a few believe in the bible. Period. All that ancient history and fossils and evolution and so on are false trails to lead us down the wrong path. The world is 6000 years old, God made man, end of story.

And continuing with the mindless masses, most believers probably just don’t think about it. They believe the bible. They believe scientists. They never wonder how or why the two beliefs are somewhat contradictory. To use an Orwellian term, they believe in doublethink.

One of the more rational beliefs I’ve heard, although also probably the least common, is that God has updated religions several times. We should all know how Christianity is, basically, Judaism 2.0. Similarly, Islam is Christianity 2.0, as are some less popular religions like Latter Day Saints. I’ve heard arguments that God made revisions earlier as well, but we lost records of that over time. It’s even, very slightly, supported by the fact that parts of the OT seem to indicate other gods do exist, they’re just not as powerful as God. Which certainly can be read as God attempting to replace previous beliefs with new ones, in the same way Christianity ‘replaced’ Jewish beliefs.
Just for the record, I’m agnostic. There may or may not be a god, but I’m pretty sure none of the religions have it right. So none of the above are my personal beliefs, just things I’ve heard believers say.

5

This was Dante’s view, as expressed in the Inferno. The first level of Hell was not a place of punishment but rather a relatively pleasant holding area for virtuous people who died before Christ’s coming. When Christ passed through Hell after his death, some followed him to Heaven. The Emperor Trajan is the only one I can call to mind.

6

Just to point out: it’s only a tiny minority of christians worldwide that hold these kinds of Young Earth Creationist beliefs. All mainstream religions find a way to reconcile the factually wrong chronologies in the bible with scientific fact (eg: a biblical day = 1 billion years). It’s only in the US that YECs have become so completely conflated with christianity in general in the public mind.

7

Hi Matthew

<<The bible says that Adam was created on the Sixth Day, and the Bible states that that was 6000 years ago.>>

No it doesn’t.

> The original Hebrew from which we derive day is ‘yom’, which does not necessarily refer to a 24 hour period. It can be used to refer to any period of time of a ‘fixed duration’.
> The 6,000 years is based on calculations by 17th century scholar James Bishop Ussher. These calculations were required to use a number of assumptions, because the genealogies are not complete. Regrettably Mr Usshers work has been been taken as authoritative by some who see religion as needing to be in conflict with science.

The Bible is not inconsistent with an ‘old’ earth, and Christianity does not rely on a 6,000 year old planet.

8

The 6000 year chronology is more or less accurate because of the geneology from Adam to Jesus and from Jesus to the current time. There is nothing in th Bible that claims that there was a time before time or that creation took a multitude of years. A day means a 24 hour period.

Here is an argument for Creationism from a website:

AGE OF THE EARTH:
Many will question, “Is not the earth billions of years old? Have not people been on this earth much longer than the Bible allows?” It is not the purpose of this web page to argue the date of the earth but there are facts that show the earth is much younger than millions of years old.

First: The methods for dating the age of the earth have very serious flaws and are not at all accurate. They cannot be trusted.

Second: The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. If the earth was million years old the moon would be much further away. Because it is close to the earth is proof that the earth is not old.

Third: The oceans do not have enough salt in them and this lack of salt is proof that the earth is not very old.

Fourth: The magnetic field around the earth is slowly decreasing. If the earth was old this field would be very weak by now. Its strength is proof that the earth is young.

These facts and others must be answered by those who claim the earth is million and billions of years old. To argue that the earth is old is an argument not based on facts.

http://www.abetterhope.com/whois/gen-1.html

9

Oh Lord, forgive them for they are about to *massacre *this poor sap :slight_smile:

10

I don’t think that Captain Midnight endorses these arguments; he merely states that [some] Christians advance them, and that it is at least possible to read the Bible in a way that is consistent with them. So no need for a massacre.

Askance’s point stands. While it may be possible to read the bible this way, only a minority of Christians, from a minority tradition of Christianity, actually do. This position is not characteristic of Christianity.

Quite why these particular Christians should be disproporitionately concentrated in the US is another matter. However I think that might call for an investigation of American society and culture rather than an investigation of Christianity.

11

Since there are a lot of individual questions, I might break it up into a few different classes of question:)

This I take to be a general question of “What happened to people who lived before Jesus and before Christianity?”. To answer this question:

  1. From the biblical perspective the problem with humanity is not one of knowledge, but of will. It is not that people cannot know enough about God to be acceptable to him. It is that people, capable of understanding that God exists, choose to reject Him and a right way of living. So for instance Romans 1:18-23 talks about how God’s existence is plain from the world, and that people choose to worship other things rather then God himself

  2. Salvation is by grace (ie: it is the undeserved gift of God), not by works (ie: by being a good person). In the biblical perspective every person (myself included) has rejected God and therefore is under the same condemnation. God is not unjust in allowing people to be punished for their rebellion. It is the mercy of God that saves some, not the injustice of God that allows some to be condemned

  3. Some people before Jesus were obviously saved. So for instance in Matthew 22:32, Jesus says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still living, implying that they are in some way saved. Even more intriguing is King Melchizedek of Salem in Genesis 13. Here is someone that Abraham interacts with the seems to be outside of the nation of Israel and of the “special” revelation of God, and yet is described as a “priest of God Most High”. God has chosen to reveal himself to all peoples through Jesus, but that does not stop him from revealing Himself in a more exclusive way to other individuals or to groups should he choose to. Indeed He most likely has, and some people before Christianity were saved in this way.

  4. We are lucky enough to live in the age in which God has fully revealed himself, and while we may never know all the ways in which God revealed himself to people before Christ, we know how Jesus has revealed himself to us. As the writer of Hebrews puts it in Hebrews 1. “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.” Whatever excuses ancient people may or may not have are not excuses that would work with us.

This I take to be a general question on creationism, specifically “Young Earth” creationism. Here Askance is quite correct. YEC is not a specifically Christian view. It is a 19th-20th century American view. Looking at the early church fathers for instance will show that leaders in the church even back then didn’t believe that Genesis was literally word for word exactly true.
The alternative (and majority) view is to recognise that the question of “how” the world was created is a very modernist question, not a question from the ancient world. The ancients were much more concerned with “who” created the world and “why”. “How” is in their way of thinking really an irrelevant detail. So when we come to Genesis what it is trying to demonstrate is that God created the world in a way unlike the other gods of the ancient near east, and that the created parts of the world (sun, moon, ect) were not God. It is not concerned with the mechanism of creation, and it is therefore wrong to read that into the text. YEC may be correct, or the earth may be millions of years old, but either way Genesis is not trying to take one side or the other.

Since you bring it up:), I think that the typical Atheist views of the world are far more problematic that than Christian ones, especially of things like the nature of the world. It is, I think, both philosophically (because of actualised infinites) and scientifically (because of entropy, the big bang, ect.) for the world to have existed forever. Therefore the world must have come into existence at some point. In Atheism, since there is nothing outside the world to cause that to happen, the only option is that the world came into existence for no reason at all. However this means that empirical sciences are necessarily false, because the universe at bottom operates outside the laws of cause and effect. It is really little better than magical thinking.

Also, I think that evolution is actually against atheistic materialism much more so than Christianity. The problem with atheistic evolution is that things develop based on their ability to survive, not to correctly know the nature of the world. Given both atheistic materialism and evolution there is no guarantee that our brains have evolved to allow us to know anything correctly. However if God creates us directly, or guides evolutionary processes, then there si good reason to believe our faculties are reliable.
This is an argument that is advanced mostly by the Christian philosopher Alvin_Plantinga, and I think it is an interesting take on the general problem of how there can be a self in a fully materialistic universe.

Fry.

12

He seems to be a Christian extremist of some sort; here we see him claiming that Catholicism isn’t actually Christian for example. I expect he means what he’s saying.

That fails on multiple levels. As is often pointed out when arguments like yours are brought up, adding a god or gods as a creator doesn’t solve anything; it just pushes any questions you have a step back. Nor, whether you like it or not is an infinite past unscientific. Nor again are uncaused effects impossible; they are common in quantum mechanics. And the “empirical sciences” work just fine even if there are uncaused effects, as evinced by the fact that they actually work. That’s largely what empiricism means, after all.

Another claim full of errors. The fact is we haven’t evolved to “know things correctly”; science and society in general are full of procedures to get around the proverbially error ridden nature of humanity. You are trying to disprove atheism using a quality humans don’t have. And on top of that, we know that “atheistic evolution” is true because we can see and study it in the lab and elsewhere. Scientifically the existence of evolution is a settled question; and there’s never been a shred of evidence for a god guiding it.

13

Agreed. I can’t even imagine how someone can come to the conclusion our brains are made to know things correctly. It’s very very obvious they’re not.

Anyway, back on topic (somewhat): about the “salvation before Jesus” thing; what’s the OT view on salvation, if there is one? I know Jewish thoughts on afterlife are quite different from the Christian ones.

14

Plenty of Jews don’t even believe in an afterlife.

15

Salvation from what?

16

The ancient Saduccees did not believe in an afterlife as they thought it was not specifically promised in the Torah. The ancient Pharisees, however, did as they thought it was at least implied in the Torah, plus a form of afterlife or Resurrection is present in some of the Prophets and the Writings, which the Pharisees also accepted as Scripture.

With the 70 A.D. fall of the Priestly Sacrificial Temple system, the Saduccees became irrelevant while Rabbinic Judaism was developed by the Pharisees. Rabbinic Judaism taught quite a bit about the Afterlife & the Resurrection. With the Enlightenment of the 1770’s, there was a Jewish version-the Haskalah, which downplayed the supernatural aspects of Judaism & emphasized the practical & rational aspects. Out of this developed Reform Judaism & the various more liberal groups. They downplayed ideas of the Afterlife as being too distracting from the importance of this life.

To Alessan-
Old Testament Salvation concerns- Salvation from punishment for their sins in this life, salvation from national dispersal, salvation from cessation of existence.

To the OP: I go with I Peter 3:18-20 & 4:5-6 The B.C. Departed were evangelized & offered Eternal Life in Christ. I believe the same happens to people who die without ever hearing the Gospel.

So briefly, ancient Saduccees & many modern liberal Jews- no Afterlife; ancient Pharisees & many modern religious conservative Jews- Afterlife.

17

The ancient Saduccees did not believe in an afterlife as they thought it was not specifically promised in the Torah. The ancient Pharisees, however, did as they thought it was at least implied in the Torah, plus a form of afterlife or Resurrection is present in some of the Prophets and the Writings, which the Pharisees also accepted as Scripture.

With the 70 A.D. fall of the Priestly Sacrificial Temple system, the Saduccees became irrelevant while Rabbinic Judaism was developed by the Pharisees. Rabbinic Judaism taught quite a bit about the Afterlife & the Resurrection. With the Enlightenment of the 1770’s, there was a Jewish version-the Haskalah, which downplayed the supernatural aspects of Judaism & emphasized the practical & rational aspects. Out of this developed Reform Judaism & the various more liberal groups. They downplayed ideas of the Afterlife as being too distracting from the importance of this life.

So briefly, ancient Saduccees & many modern liberal Jews- no Afterlife; ancient Pharisees & many modern religious conservative Jews- Afterlife.

To Alessan- OT Salvation concerns: From punishment for sins in this life; From national dispersal; From cessation of existence.

To the OP- I go with the I Peter 3:18-20, 4:5-6 evangelism of the dead explanation. I believe that continues for those who die without hearing the Gospel.
I’m also an Old Earth Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist.

18

Could a mod remove my FIRST post please?

19

The popular Christian explanation to the dinosaurs, etc. is that the earlier sections of the Bible are intended as parables and life lesson stories. They aren’t intended to be taken as literal history.

As to God suddenly appearing from nowhere after a few thousands of years of human history, the Bible states in Exodus 6 that the Israelites used to know Him by a different name. “God spoke to Moses, and said to him, ‘I am Yahweh; and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them.’” My personal guess is that Yahweh was a rename of Amurru, who was himself likely a clone of Hadad. That takes the deity back another few thousand years. Theoretically, it could be descended from some further proto-deity that goes back to the cavemen. Of course, it might not be either.

20

I disagree, for several reasons:

  1. An explaination, to be the best explaination, does not need to have it’s own explaination. The idea that God just pushes the explainations back a level is fundamentally confused in that way. To require that explainations require their own explaination means that nothing can be explained because we would end up with an infinite stack of explainations
  2. It fundamentally mis-understands the issue. The relevant issue at hand is can the universe as we see it exist without other entities existing. The God hypothesis suggests there there is necessarily something else apart from the material world. In that way, if true, it significantly adds to our understanding of reality.
  3. What I mean by an infinite past being unscientific is that it contradicts known scientific laws. A few examples:
  • The second law of thermodynamics. This states that entropy always increases, or at best remains static. Therefore if the universe had existed for an infinite time the universe we observe should have maximal entropy, and be in a heat-death like state. This is not what we observe. The fact that things like stars can exist, and that entropy is still increasing shows that the universe cannot have existed for eternity.
  • The Borde - Guth - Vilenkin theorum. It has been shown that any expanding universe must have a past space-time boundary. This theorum is independent of the precise details of the gravity (general relativity, quantum gravity, string theory, ect), and also descriptions of the moment of the big bang. It even holds in various multiverse scenarios.
    You may wish to claim that these theories are in some way wrong, because you know that the universe must have existed for an infinite time, but that is exactly the same rationale as the YECs.
  1. The claim that “Nor again are uncaused effects impossible; they are common in quantum mechanics” is again a fundamental mis-understanding of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not strictly deterministic, but it is probabilistic. The probability of events happening are very much bound by the laws of cause and effect, making quantum mechanics statistically deterministic. Quantum mechanical events are not “uncaused” in any proper understanding of them. It is even possible to use the statistically deterministic nature of quantum mechanics to make useful devices. So the tunnelling microscope for instance. Because the probabilities of electrons tunneling through a barrier are deterministic, it is possible to use this to image surfaces. If tunnelling was truely uncaused then this would be impossible.
  2. I agree that science does work. The question is why. If you are happy to state the everything that exists does so for no reason without any cause, it is hard to see why anything else should work according to cause and effect. It is the ultimate case of special pleading.

You have it around backwards. I claim that we can know things correctly because God has created in us the ability to know. This can happen either by guiding evolutionary processes or by direct creation, it doesn’t matter. Evolution in a godless world cannot create people with the same ability to know. Therefore if we believe we are created through evolution and believe that there is no God we are undermining our ability to know in the first place. If evolution in a godless world shows that we cannot have confidence in our beliefs, in what way can we say that we know evolution, or anything else for that matter, to be true?
Fundamentally the combination of evolution and atheistic naturalism makes it impossible to form a coherent, rational epistimology.

Fry.