The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[PhroX]

Why do people insist that the old cleanliness (etc.) laws of the Torah no longer apply if those verses (allegedly from the mouth of Jesus himself) are so emphatic that this is not the case?

Beacuse they don't want to live according to the old laws presumably...

 

[Plotinus]

There's a bit more to it than that, I think. The thrust of Paul's argument in Galatians is that because God has decisively acted in Christ, and because those who will be saved are those who have faith (however defined) in Christ, the old demarcator of the community of salvation (keeping the Law) no longer applies. (Apologies if this is a bit convoluted, I'm trying to avoid taking a stand on the New Perspective on what all this actually means.) So there's a good theological reason to think that the old cleanliness laws etc. are no longer definitive. And bear in mind that, for all we can tell, Paul himself never stopped following the Law, just as he never stopped thinking of himself as a Jew or indeed a Pharisee; he just thought it shouldn't be binding on gentile Christians.

 

[Borachio]

Why do people insist that the old cleanliness (etc.) laws of the Torah no longer apply if those verses (allegedly from the mouth of Jesus himself) are so emphatic that this is not the case?

But at the same time we have:

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

[Arakhor]

So Paul's writings should be preferred over the teachings of Jesus because it's easier for us? All this conflicting stuff just makes those who claim to take every word in the Bible as literal divine writ look all the sillier.

 

[Tigranes]

Well Christianity is a cult of lies, I fully support prejudice against such an evil demonic thing.

bhavv, with all due respect, I advise you to put your money where your mouth is and don't be so abusive. If something is a lie -- try to be better than that. Show us the way. If something is a lie -- act according to what you think the truth is. Don't preach to us, walk your truth and tell us how it changes you and people around you.

Did your abusive anti christian behavior made you a better person? Be friendly and describe. I challenge you. I dare you. Imagine us having eye contact, forget about being funny, get serious and tell me like a grown up man to grown up man. Are you a better person now?

Do you feel happier? Talk to me. I mean it when I ask -- be bold enough to answer it seriously. Do you feel ok about yourself?

Did it help you to be more compassionate to the people? Yes or no, and how?

Did your violent antichristianity helped you with your personal problems? Do you take less medication because of that? Could you feel more loyal to your girlfriend or establish a deep relationship with a girl in a first place? Do you have more meaningful relationship with your parents, siblings, friends?

What is the purpose of your life? Why bother waking up and brushing teeth every morning? What's the main point, if we all are going to die some day, and we don't even know when, and nothing really matters?

Do you want us to believe that you don't give a damn and just prefer to be forum's clown by hurting people's feelings?

It sure does not sound like this.

Every man has a story. What is yours?

 

[Flying Pig]

It's very nice if Christianity makes you a better person, but that has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of its statements.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, that's not altogether true, Flying Pig. That may be true for its ontological claims, but not, say, for it's ethical claims. Some of its statements are about how to be a better person, and if by following them you become a better person, I would say you have in an important way demonstrated the validity of its statements, no?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's very nice if Christianity makes you a better person, but that has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of its statements.

True, but it does factor in regarding whether I'd like those beliefs to propagate in my society.

I mostly care about my neighbour's health when it either causes indirect harm to me or when it causes harm to them. When it causes a net good (compared to the alternative), ehn, not so bad.

 

[Crackerbox]

I think it's a myth that Christians become better people or more good or more fulfilled. When we accept Jesus as Lord, it's merely saying, "Jesus is the Son of God who rose from the Dead. I believe Jesus is the Messiah who came to give us grace so we might be saved." Christians are not better people, but hopefully we are new creations.

We are called to act in altruism, not to elevate ourselves or feel good about ourselves but to act in humility and see the Christ in others. Jesus said that suffering person represents him. We're helping them and so emulate the incredible love Jesus has for Humanity.

We're no better. Our deeds don't earn us any reward. We're terrible sinners and ONLY by grace did we get saved, and only because Jesus took mercy upon us.

Hopefully if we are sincerely convicted in our hearts, minds, and souls, then this manifests as a transformation. We were formerly on the wrong path. We might have been filled with bitterness. But then we were loved and so in sincerity to this, we love others.

Do that for a long while and it becomes an innate desire to live in service. Instead of feeling more powerful or better, you recall your life as a natural man or woman. Then our sins were manifold and we were wretched creatures. We're still sinners because we're imperfect but listen to this:

Spoiler :

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set youa free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,b God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.c And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives lifed because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because ofe his Spirit who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.f And by him we cry, “Abba,g Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. Romans 8:

This is a very bold passage from Romans 8: 1-14

Yahweh doesn't treat us by our sins and condemn us. No. Yahweh claims us as children! Not only as children but as co-heirs with Christ! Jesus becomes not only our Master, but our Brother. We are not worthy to untie his shoes, and yet miraculously, tenderly, compassionately, and richly God lifts us up as the Prodigal Son.

Spoiler :

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. Luke 15: 11-32’”

We are RESTORED! Have you ever been seperated from your family because of terrible things you had done? Then were you completely forgiven? This is what Yahweh does. You are elevated back to where you are supposed to be, not treated like a criminal as you ought to be.

 

[Crackerbox]

There's a bit more to it than that, I think. The thrust of Paul's argument in Galatians is that because God has decisively acted in Christ, and because those who will be saved are those who have faith (however defined) in Christ, the old demarcator of the community of salvation (keeping the Law) no longer applies. (Apologies if this is a bit convoluted, I'm trying to avoid taking a stand on the New Perspective on what all this actually means.) So there's a good theological reason to think that the old cleanliness laws etc. are no longer definitive. And bear in mind that, for all we can tell, Paul himself never stopped following the Law, just as he never stopped thinking of himself as a Jew or indeed a Pharisee; he just thought it shouldn't be binding on gentile Christians.

What an excellent post! We are Gentiles are we not? The majority of us are not Jews. Jesus came to fulfill the law. At the time there were likely converts to Judaism that became Christians as well as Jews who became Christians. There also were Gentiles who became Christians. Pauls states emphatically that Gentiles don't have to do all manner of these Judaic practices.

Maybe some are unaware of this, but there are some Messianic Christians, some who are former Jews, other not, who do try to live within the old 613 laws of the Old Testament. i.e the Mitzvot. They are Christians who honor Judaic tradition. Here's a link to Messianic Christianity. There is also Messianc Judaism in which they consider themselves Jews who believe in Jesus.

Paul would probably consider himself a Messianic Jew today.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, that's not altogether true, Flying Pig. That may be true for its ontological claims, but not, say, for it's ethical claims. Some of its statements are about how to be a better person, and if by following them you become a better person, I would say you have in an important way demonstrated the validity of its statements, no?

I would argue that ethical claims operate outside the realm of 'true' and 'false' - hence the fact that it is good to love your neighbour as yourself has no bearing on whether or not God is three-in-one, but that isn't to say that we should not love our neighbours as ourselves. If it is necessary to believe that God is three-in-one in order to attain that, then it might be called a necessary evil, but I don't think we have to be so unsubtle with it.

 

[Crackerbox]

I would argue that ethical claims operate outside the realm of 'true' and 'false' - hence the fact that it is good to love your neighbour as yourself has no bearing on whether or not God is three-in-one, but that isn't to say that we should not love our neighbours as ourselves. If it is necessary to believe that God is three-in-one in order to attain that, then it might be called a necessary evil, but I don't think we have to be so unsubtle with it.

Why do you presume to call the Trinity a necessary evil. That's so intellectually loaded. If you're going to be detached, then be detached. How about "if the Trinity is a necessity..."?

Of course it is not. One could be altruistic without God, of course people can.

It is rather a truism that the preponderance of atheists will even argue about things like good, evil, right, and wrong are givens but negotiated instead. As such, I don't see much altruism among atheists of that subgroup. If one doesn't believe in morals except through community negotiation then how can there be morality at all? What is moral among sociopaths is often either pretending to fit in and emulate within community to merely stay out of jail.

Atheists often make the claim that those who have an absence of belief are equivalent to atheists, but I scoff at this. There are tons of irreligious people who honestly don't like to be labeled as atheists. Many of them are moral and altruistic.

 

[El_Machinae]

You misunderstood. It was "if the belief in the Trinity is necessary" that was the 'necessary evil'. i.e., if the moral framework could not be attained without some specific beliefs, then the adoption of those beliefs (if it were false, or even just unprovable) would be a 'necessary evil'.

 

[Crackerbox]

And my point is that regardless to put the term Trinity as a given within a sentence and refer to it as a necessary evil is prejudicial by saying it's an "evil". Just say if the Trinity is a necessity.

I'd be embarrased if I said if Monothism is ____, then Islam is a necessary evil. It's grotesque regardless what belief system I put in there. It's a very dubious way to debate and discuss a topic by emotional language that ultimately depicts it as evil in some sense but necessary, like assassination of enemy leaders.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, they were explicitly discussing the moral vs. practical value of Christianity. I get that you're offended, but keep in mind that people will have a hard time figuring out why you're offended.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It seems like you answered your own question... You said:

There are tons of irreligious people who honestly don't like to be labeled as atheists.

Of course they don't, when people say things like this:

I don't see much altruism among atheists

You go on to say:

If one doesn't believe in morals except through community negotiation then how can there be morality at all?

which is implying that atheist do not have morals. You also say:

What is moral among sociopaths is often either pretending to fit in and emulate within community to merely stay out of jail

which implies that atheists are sociopaths that only pretend to have morals to avoid societal punishment. Finally, referring to people who don't believe in religion/God but don't like being labeled atheist, you say

Many of them are moral and altruistic.

which of course implies atheists are not moral and altruistic.

So you can see why people would be reluctant to accept being labeled as atheists (not to mention the fact that people resent labels in general).

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't mind. I find the presumption that atheists cannot form a moral code to be scary, sometimes. And it's tough to explain how some atheism is not a pro-active belief (while it certainly CAN be)

 

[Plotinus]

I'm afraid that the anti-atheism types often seem to have very little knowledge of ethics and none at all of meta-ethics. It's a simple fact that theism has no better resources than atheism to explain morality; if atheists have a problem here, so do theists. Yet for some reason this doesn't stop theists acting as if they've got an explanation which atheists don't.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm afraid that the anti-atheism types often seem to have very little knowledge of ethics and none at all of meta-ethics. It's a simple fact that theism has no better resources than atheism to explain morality; if atheists have a problem here, so do theists. Yet for some reason this doesn't stop theists acting as if they've got an explanation which atheists don't.

Well I agree with you but I like to challenge you into telling us what are these (re)sources?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well I agree with you but I like to challenge you into telling us what are these (re)sources?

I was thinking the same... The obvious "resources" religious people have are the Bible Quran, etc.

I don't know of an atheist equivalent, because atheists by definition, would not, cannot have a "holy book". So I guess you would have to fall back on personal experience, societal convention, instinct or some similar combination. But don't religious people have that as well? So in addition to that they also have "the Book", while atheists don't. So in that sense, religious people do have "more" resources.

Of course we can argue until the sun burns out about whether "more" is "better".