Hi Kevin,
I don't know you, but I'm just sending a note your way letting you know I've subscribed to your favorites and I'm sending a friend request your way. Worldview wise, we are miles apart, but I need to be rubbing shoulders with more atheists and such...makes the discussion more lively and interesting. Anyway, like I said, this message is just a common courtesy, that's all. Who knows, perhaps we can benefit from one another's stumbles.
Cheers
Rich
---
Rich,
Thanks for the invite, and welcome! By the way, how do you feel about Christianity, exactly? You seem like a pretty intelligent person - so how do you deal with the fact that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is either provably false, or really morally reprehensible? How do you pick and choose what you believe? What's the criteria for how you decide that some of the horrible sick things in the New and Old Testament should be ignored, while some of them should be followed? And if you really start to think about things, how have you not come to the conclusion that there might be a better way to observe our world? Just curious.
Best,
Kevin
---
Kevin,
Thanks for the great questions! Each one, though, involves a thorough answer, and I think you deserve that kind of response. Therefore, it's hard for me to tackle them all in one email. Can you prioritize the questions a bit and/or pick one for me to focus on?
Thanks
Rich
---
Rich,
All right. Let's start with this - how do you pick and choose from the New and Old Testaments what you choose to follow, and how do you justify what you discard?
Best,
Kevin
---
Kevin,
Good question. Lots of people ask this one.
Technically speaking, its all God's Word and is still valid for today. But I think I know what you are getting at...there are some laws in the OT, such as laws about what is "clean" and "unclean," that Christians don't practice. Yet, there are some laws in the OT that Christians hold are valid for today (10 commandments, prohibitions against homosexuality, divorce, murder, etc). Why?
There are a few different type of laws in the OT, some of which was meant to only apply to Israel, and others more universally. How can you tell the difference? A couple of tests: 1) Who was the law given to? Just to Israel? Or is it supposed to apply more universally? Sometimes you can tell by the context of the verse in question. The prohibition against homosexuality, for example, is flanked by prohibitions against bestiality and other gnarly sexual deviances. That should tell you something. Anyway, if a law is given in France, and it just applies to French people (certain traffic laws and mores, for instance), then I can ignore it if there's not a same law in America. Similarly, if there's a ceremonial cleanliness law given in the Old Testament just for Israel, then it most likely doesn't apply in today's world *if it skirts past the other two tests coming up.* 2) Is the prohibition/law affirmed by natural law? That is, does it cut against our design as humans, thus damaging our souls/bodies? Is it transcendant in some way? Paul talks about this in Romans chp 2 when he talks about "Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the things required by the law" 3) Is the prohibition/law affirmed in the New Testament? The church had just this discussion in Acts 9-15. Some Jewish Christians thought that the new Gentile converts should have to conform to the Jewish ceremonial law (washing hands in a ceremony before eating, using dishes a certain way, washing them a certain way....Kosher law, kinda...basically), others thought not. Caused a big stir. The leaders at that time met and determined that Gentiles did not have to follow the ceremonial law, but they did have to abstain from four things: sexual immorality, food sacrificed to idols (had major associations with cultic religious practices), from drinking blood, and from the meat of strangled animals (again, had strong ties to pagan religions of the day).
I'll be the first to say that its not always straightforward, but those three principles above are reliable guides. A lot of folks think its all arbitrary, but of course I disagree...there's a rhyme and reason to it all, just like the three principles above indicate.
One more thing: any Christian worth his salt, though, knows that no matter how many "laws" you obey, it does not "earn" one favor with God...we all sin, and good deeds cannot pay for bad deeds--we already owe God 100% goodness, and you can't pay for a debt with something you already owe.
Hope this helps
Rich
---
Hello again Rich,
I'm afraid that I'll never be a Christian, or religious in the strict sense, but I do like learning more about what people think.
First, the idea that some laws were given to Israelites, and others were universal, is new to me, so that's novel. You say that you can tell 'which are which' in some way. Can you provide more detail? You say that things are "flanked" by other things, which seems awfully fuzzy, and open to interpretation. Very subjective.
Secondly, whether or not the laws given in the OT are affirmed by "natural law" is not at all objective. For instance, you site homosexuality. Homosexuality has been a part of human culture for ages, and even exists outside the scope of homo erectus, especially in many primate cultures, our evolutionary cousins (I assume that you do accept the theory of Natural Selection, no?). The religious crusade against homosexuality, in my opinion, is merely confined to social, religious agendas - not at all natural law. During OT times, laws were given to avoid pork and shellfish, and to not mix meat with milk, which made sense during the times, given food pathogens. At the time, these would be great natural laws. But now, they're not. Could we not see the other laws in the same light, given a progress of thousands of years? In any case, again, this seems very subjective.
Third - laws affirmed / not affirmed in the NT. Let's look at this logically. Can you give me some totally objective biblical backup of laws given in the OT which are negated in the NT, vs those which are not, which we should still follow? As far as I know, Jesus never spoke about OT laws which were now supposed to be void. To my knowledge, Jesus was an excellent Jew who kept the OT laws. He never said that you could now shave your beard, stop stoning your impudent children, stop keeping slaves from other nations, eat shellfish and pork, and work on the Sabbath (which, to the point, is Saturday, actually). How would you explain this? How does the NT let you stop following the OT rules, exactly?
Hope to hear from you!
Best,
Kevin
---
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your response. I think it'll be best if I start with your last comment and work up.
Jesus didn't have to "negate" certain OT laws. The Mosaic law (the law in question) was understood to be for a certain people (the Jews) at a certain time only. Therefore, negating was something Jesus didn't have to do...He was an observant Jew and so obeyed the Mosaic law and He commanded other Israelites to do so.
If you read Acts 15 and some of Paul's letters, you'll see the early church grapple with this. Some Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile converts had to obey the Mosaic law. The church thought about it and prayed, and came to the conclusion that no, the Gentile converts did not have to obey the Mosaic law--why burden them with something not even Jews themselves could bear? Paul constantly fought off these legalists in his letters.
Think of it this way: New York law is for New Yorkers. It doesn't apply outside of the state. There are laws, of course, in New York's laws that all states will share, like laws against homicide, because they are more universal in nature.
It's the same way with the OT law. Some laws, like the laws about beards and shellfish and such, apply only to Israelites, while others, like the 10 commandments, are universal. These laws apply to all (analagous to the laws against homicide above), and they are in the OT law because they are wrong, not the other way around.
How do you know the difference? Again, natural law. I think here you confuse the meaning of natural law. "Natural Law" doesn't mean "happens in nature." If that were the case, homosexuality (as well as a myriad of other even more questionable things!) would be ok precisely because it happens, period. But "Natural Law" instead refers to the law of God that all humans can know apart from Scripture. It is the "law written on the heart." Pretty much every culture, for example, has thought it wrong to murder, lie, etc.
Key to the notion of natural law is design. Human beings are created and bestowed with intrinsic dignity. We are designed from head to toe, the physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional. Cutting against this design causes problems, much like abusing a car by putting milk in the gas tank would...this is the line of reasoning the NT takes.
Let's go back to the example we've been tossing around: the prohibition against homosexuality comes in. It doesn't matter, strictly speaking, that homosexuality has *happened* in many other cultures and the animal kingdom (this latter assumption needs to be qualified, btw, but that's another discussion)--what matters is that it cuts against the grain of how we are designed sexually (and I'm not just referring to the physical arena)...man and woman were made to fit like 'hand in glove.' In summary, anything sexually outside one man one woman in a committed marriage harms the human beings God has created and stains the thumprint He has placed on our beings.
You might disagree with the argument above on homosexuality (I'm just using it because it came up, I forget how--I think I might have mentioned it originally--in the context of our conversation). We can choose other examples (murder, lying, heterosexual adultery). The main point is that NT prohibitions of certain things follow pretty much that same line of thinking. Paul elucidates this argument in Romans 1-3.
Lastly, I'm curious about your beginning comment that you'll never be Christian. I can see it if you say something like "I'm not convinced right now" but saying that you'll never be a Christian seems a bit strong. How have you come to that position? Since the stakes are so high (either way), do you think you should at least be open?
Hope this helps...btw, if you Twitter, I'll be live Tweeting a debate on God's existence this weekend b.w Christopher Hitchens (*God is Not Great* author) and William Lane Craig. My user name is rdb268
Good talking, take care
Rich
---
Hey, Rich.
We've narrowed it down a bit, but nowhere near to agreeing, yet. A couple of issues still.
Issue 1 - Authority from scripture:
This covers both the issue of whether Christians need to follow Jewish laws, and whether OT laws need to be followed in the NT world.
I think I get what you're saying - I went in and read Acts 15, which was a little ambiguous, and seemed to be mostly about circumcision (which, you must admit, would be quite a bizarre criterion to determine whether or not you get "saved" after you die.) However, I'm willing to stipulate that passages in the NT may negate OT laws. But this still raises further questions.
Even this passage, and other passages in the NT, do not seem to negate specific OT laws (or, can my assertion can be contradicted, and can scripture-based backup be provided for specific negations? If not, you can't really cherry-pick the laws that you want negated.) The way I see it, either a) the OT laws are valid, or b) they're not, or c) some completely unambiguous scripture-based rationale can be given as to which laws need to be followed, and which can't. I recently heard a recent radio interview with Fred Phelps (you know, the Westboro Baptist Church "God Hates Fags/America/The World" etc.) in which he was arguing for C, which was pretty funny.
Anyway,
"9: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10: Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11: But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15, KJB)
So, to wit, even if you eat shellfish, shave your beard, work on the Sabbath, etc., there is "no difference between us and them ... through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they," i.e., depending on the dogma of your particular Christian sect, if you perform the correct rituals and have the correct relationship with Jesus Christ, then you are "saved": e.g., Catholicism: baptism, communions, confessions, no mortal sins, last rites; American Protestant: accepting JC as your personal savior, being reborn, keeping Jesus in your heart, etc., or something to that effect (the specific "salvation criteria" therein is not part of my argument.)
But then you kind of reverse yourself later, and site Romans 1-3 as proof that the NT states that homosexuality is wrong, so you seem to be saying that the NT can affirm certain OT laws. But your logic is blown away by other passages in the NT that affirm slavery as a correct practice (Ephesians 6:5, Ephesians 6:9, Galatians 4:30, Colossians 3:22, Colossians 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9 ...).
Unless you want to argue for the validity of slavery (and
other unpalatable things in the NT), let's assume that even things in the NT can be wrong, or outdated, and that we need to rely solely on natural law.
Issue 2 - Authority from "natural laws":
Let's explore your argument that "natural law" is what you say it is.
nat⋅u⋅ral -adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
Come on, man! You're a teacher, and you are arguing with me that the word "natural" means something other than "formed by nature"? Or are you trying to use some kind of weird substitute Christian jargon? If we're going to have a discussion here, we need to be able to steer clear of bizarre linguistic acrobatics where "natural" comes from some alternate etymological universe.
You're talking about social principles. Our current (horribly incomplete) understanding of these principles, in relation to how they operate in the objective universe, starts way down in mathematics, and propagates up through physics, then chemistry, then biology, then psychology, then sociology. Allegedly, there are "natural laws" which govern the universe in this way - the very core set of objectives truths by which things happen in our surroundings. As humans in our current age, we have a very limited understanding of these principles.
However, we do have a method - the scientific method - which lets us test theories about these principles, and gives us a way to lend the weight of confidence to certain things which we think are correct - by testing objective truths, and discarding the noise that results from things like "
feeling something in your heart."
One problem with humans is that we are incredibly fallible, and our minds have a hard time grasping concepts which are unintuitive. Who would have guessed that time actually slows down when you're going really fast (as compared to another observer, moving slower)? This is not something our minds were designed to handle - but if we hadn't figured it out, the GPS navigation systems in cars wouldn't work. Humans cannot intuitively grasp the universe's "natural laws." These truths are not in our hearts.
You are not talking about things that "happen in nature," therefore you are not talking about "natural law." What you are talking about is morality.
mo⋅ral⋅i⋅ty
-noun, plural
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. a doctrine or system of morals.
3. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
Morality is much more subjective than "natural law". Let's not call things by other names in order to lend additional credence or objectivity to them.
So, regarding morality, most societies do not tolerate murder, violence, and rape. This is the morality of most societies today, but there are huge exceptions. Some societies do tolerate rape, if the woman wasn't dressed properly, or if it's a man in prison, or if she's married to the man who raped her. Some societies tolerate murder to punish a woman who was raped, or if you did something else that was considered against the particular moral customs. This is the nature of subjective morality - it is not a shared value between cultures, and so not something you can claim is "written on the heart," unless those hearts are all just Western-world hearts (and if those hearts are American hearts, then what's written on them doesn't include capital punishment.)
You are trying to argue for an objective standard of morality, but your standard is not objective - it's the one that fits your specific definition of what you think is right and wrong, given your circumstances. Looking around the world, this standard does not exist in an objective way. If you had grown up in Saudi Arabia, would your standards of "natural law" still be your Christian standards? What you are calling a "law" is the moral acceptability of the extremely small group of people (statistically, given world population) that you hang out with and share your ideals with. Calling it a "law" creates a parody of the word "law".
In regards to homosexuality (you brought it up, by the way) - If you want me to qualify that homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom, here you go:
"
1500 Animal Special Practice Homosexuality"
"
The Gay Animal Kingdom"
"
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate"
Actually, just google something like "homosexuality in the animal kingdom". Your admission that it does happen in other cultures goes against your argument that certain morality is objective and written on the heart [of every human]. If that were so, then we'd see a pretty standard response to homosexuality amongst cultures - but that is demonstrably not so.
Even if humans did have an exact shared morality (
which they don't), it would not presume that they would have been given it from a metaphysical or religious source. Again, referencing other animals, especially social, intelligent ones (or even those in the insect kingdom), it's quite obvious that they work together in order to accomplish things, as a group: things which could not be accomplished alone. We, like other animals (ostensibly without morality) cooperate, and form bonds with those around us which prevent us from harming each other.
That's not metaphysical, spiritual, or religious, it's in the interest of our survival. Humans derived ethics and the laws against things like killing each other and stealing long before we got religion -
do your research.
Back to your example of homosexuality. In many mammalian social groups, a percentage of them are bisexual, and some of them engage in activities only with the same sex. Researchers have discovered that this can be good for forming social bonds, and it also may be advantageous to have certain members of society which are otherwise productive, but not involved in the time and resource-consuming act of caring for young. There are other theories; that is only one. But it shows that there are various explanations for how something like homosexuality could be part of the "natural law," but not part of your morality.
As an aside, regarding your claim that human beings have a certain design, certain behavior that you think is wrong would only cut against the "design" of humans if you presuppose that human beings had a designer, and only if you are presupposing that you know the intentions of such a designer - but that would be a separate discussion and argument.
If I were to be Christian, which kind should I be? Are they all equally valid? It doesn't seem like it - most say that you have to believe certain things, to the exclusion of other beliefs, or else you are doomed to eternal torture.
I can never be Christian in the way that I can never be Muslim, never be Scientologist, never be Jewish. I could never be Shinto, Confucianist, nor Jain. I could never be a Zoroastrianist, nor Buddhist. If you presuppose that there is a "high stake" to subscribing to the correct dogma, so that you can have the right afterlife, then you assume that you're right, and everybody else is wrong; i.e., no matter which one you pick, according to a significant part of the populace, you're screwed. All of these groups has equal fervor: lots, and equal objective proof: none.
I don't believe in certain things for the reason that I'm
trying to avoid hell. The reason I'm good to other people is not because I don't want to burn in a fiery pit. I believe in what can be shown to me, because I'm rational. I treat my fellow humans well, because that is the correct thing to do, given my personal empathy. Pretty simple.
You and I are both infidels, according to Muslims. We're both nonbelievers, according to those who still worship the Greek or Roman gods. You and I both don't believe in Artemis, Baal, Cybele, Fergus, Thor, Wotan, or Zeus. We both deny existence of the gods of the Mayans, the Hindu, the Ancient Egyptians. I just believe in
one less god than you do.
I'm not on twitter, but let me know how that goes.
Best,
Kevin
---
Hi, Kevin,
I'll have to get back to you on that.
Best,
Rich