From the Lost
Works of Porphyry
On
Sinning: Can we willingly err
(i.e., can we knowingly make a mistake to harm ourselves)?
I
am of the opinion that Plato is correct when he argues that no one errs
willingly - whenever we make a mistake (i.e., does an action that leads to our
unhappiness), it is because we do not know what the right course of action is. So, according to Plato in the Timaeus, it is either through
ignorance (i.e., lack of knowledge) or madness (i.e., mental illness) that
someone does a bad action (86b).
If this claim is true, however, this is not consistent with the
Christian claim that we can willingly do bad things, i.e.,
"sin." According to the
Bible, we have knowledge of what is good and what is bad (Genesis
3:22), and therefore we knowingly make ourselves unhappy EVERY single time we
make a choice that affects our happiness.
However, when even children make themselves unhappy, they do not always
realize that they are doing something that will make them unhappy, or that is
wrong, right?
First, if one accepts this
view, is it not possible that as an adult I could do some actions and not know
what the right action is?
Second, what can be said about
mental illness? Do all humans,
according to Christianity, including mentally ill people, possess knowledge of
right and wrong, and if so, wouldnt God punish these people as well as adults? How can this view be shown to be
consistent and plausible, especially given that there is nothing in the Bible
that makes this exception (and given that God is compassionate, and, well,
vengeful, see below)?
On
Faith (or Belief) v. Good Works:
First, which is it, and second, why is knowledge of God not better than a
belief
in God?
First, in the New Testament,
Paul says, Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
deeds of law (Romans
Second, and this is a much more
important issue (as I see it), how could the stakes of our eternal lives rest
merely on one BELIEF that we have (assuming we're doing the good works, to
leave the first issue behind for now)?
If we can have knowledge of what exists, what is knowable, and how we
should live, as Plato, Plotinus, and Buddha have each asserted they possessed,
then this knowledge would seem to be much more important than ANY belief we
could have. Wisdom on earth is not
only not urged for a Christian to obtain, it is actually claimed in some
passages as being impossible for us to gain, in the Bible (See next question).
At
Job
28:12-13, it says, But where can wisdom be found? Where can we learn to understand? Wisdom is not to be found among men; no one knows it true
value. Then at Job 28:28, it
says, God said to men, To be wise, you must have reverence for the Lord. To understand, you must turn from
evil.' So within 14 verses, we
see that wisdom is not possible for humans, but that a necessary condition for
wisdom is that we have reverence for the Lord. This reverence is not necessarily sufficient for wisdom,
from what is said here. Also, in
Ecclesiastes, Koheleth, the author says, I gave my heart to seek and search
out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the
sons of man to be exercised therewith (1:13), and my wisdom remained with me
(2:9), and the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them
that have it (7:12). Lastly, in I
Corinthians 12:4-11, it says that there are different kinds of spiritual gifts
but the same Spirit ; there are different workings but the same God who
produces all of them in everyone, where one of those workings and gifts is
the expression of wisdom.
First, between the first two
sets of verses, it talks about how valuable wisdom is, and this comes after it
says that no one knows its true value – so how can someone write down how
valuable it is?
Second, if God is somehow
dictating to the writer of this Scripture, does the writer not at this point
know how valuable wisdom is, since God told the writer?
Third, if wisdom is
intelligence and compassion, why didn't Gandhi have wisdom?
Fourth, if Jesus was really
human, as some Christian traditions hold, wasn't he wise, so wasn't wisdom
found among men at that point?
Fifth, how can the writer of
Job and the writer of Ecclesiastes both be correct about wisdom, where the
former says that wisdom is not to be found among men, and that wisdom is the
search that God has given man, and wisdom gives life to them that have it?
On
God's apparent attitude with respect to our obtaining knowledge of good and
bad: Why would it be wrong for us
to know what good and bad are?
Also, we HAVE knowledge of good and bad?
First, God told Adam and Eve
that they could eat of any of the fruits of the trees in the Garden of Eden,
except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and if they did so eat,
they would die that same day (Genesis 2:16-17). The question is not why would God test
Adam and Eve, but why would God not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good
and evil? Is this knowledge not the
most important knowledge that we as humans could have, in order to be the best
people, live the best lives, raise our children in the best way possible, and
so on? Why would God give us
reason only to limit it and tell us, in effect, that we should not know about
good and evil?
Second, after God discovers
that Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
he says, Now the man has become like one of us and has knowledge of what is
good and what is bad (Genesis 3:22). So we have the knowledge of good and evil? Do children have this knowledge? Did Hitler, Stalin, Nero, Tim McVeigh,
and Jeffrey Dahmer have this knowledge?
Do mentally disabled, senile, or comatose persons have this
knowledge? I myself do not feel
that I have KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, even though I do acknowledge that I
have some opinions on ethical matters.
I'm of the opinion, in fact, that if I KNEW what was good and bad in
every case, I would not be able to act otherwise.
Third, God did not punish Adam
and Eve in the way he said that he would – he said they would not live
through the day if they ate from the tree, and they had a son together. So did God lie, or change his mind?
On
Jesus' claim to be God: What about
the others who claim to be God?
How do I know who is correct about his claim?
Jesus
says, I and my Father are one (John
On
condoned (?) incest: Would it not
appear that we are all the products of incest, given either Adam and Eve being
our ancestors, or Noah and his family's ancestors?
From
Genesis, God created Adam, and then created Eve from Adam. This implies that Adam and Eve have the
same genetic structure, so that they are basically identical twins. Since they had intercourse, it is
similar if not identical to incest.
It certainly appears that God prohibits this elsewhere (See, e.g.,
Leviticus 18:6: No one is to
approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.).
So it seems that God both condoned and prohibited incest in the case of
Adam and Eve. However, let us
suppose that incest was not practiced after and as a result of Adam and Eve's
existence. Take the case of
Noah: God killed every single
human being with the great flood, and only Noah, his wife, three sons and their
wives were alive. Again, we have
the case of incest. Why is this
acceptable to God?
In
Genesis 6:1-4, it says, The Nephilim were on the earth in those days –
and also afterward – when the sons of God went to the daughters of men
and had children by them. They
were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Then it says, The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth,
and his heart was filled with pain.
So the Lord said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the
face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the
ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.'
(Genesis 6:6-7) So the Nephilim
people are condemned by God to be killed in a great flood. God tells Noah I am going to put an
end to all people, (Genesis
First, God can experience
emotions such as grief, God can feel pain, and has a heart. Christian theology generally holds that
God is nonphysical, so do we not have to interpret this metaphorically? If the Lord grieved at that time
because he made man and they were wicked, where was God during the
Holocaust? Also, how would God
(assuming that he's all good) be able to kill humans and every living creature
(except the beings on the ark) and have a clear conscience? How can God send someone to Hell and
not feel bad about it, especially if the person was not aware of God?
Second, God said that he would
destroy all creatures, and found that Noah was righteous and blameless (6:9),
but why would God then order Noah to save two (or more) of each creature, when
he said he kill them all? There's
no explanation in the text for this.
Also, what moral actions do creatures, which presumably lack a free
will, ever carry out? How could
God be upset about creating creatures if they cannot commit moral evil?
Third, if we assume that God
is all knowing and all-powerful, wouldn't God know that the humans would behave
badly, and that he would regret creating both humans and the creatures as
well? Why would God knowingly cause
himself pain? And if God is
all-powerful, wouldn't he have been able to create whatever creatures he
wanted, or just not created them to begin with?
Fourth, if some parent regrets
creating a son or daughter because the son or daughter is wicked and not
listening to the parent, what would prevent the parent from putting an end to
them, as God did? Isn't God an
example of how we should strive to be like (e.g., we're made in his image, so
the account goes)?
Fifth, and this is the main
question, why was God's mission not accomplished (again, assuming that God is
all powerful and all knowing)?
Possible apologetic (reply):
These are just stories, told by different people, so they're not meant
to be consistent with each other.
My reply: Then why should
we take anything of what is said seriously, any more than we should believe
fairy tales about the tortoise and the hare,
Due
to the Garden of Eden incident with the fig tree, God said to Adam, You
listened to your wife and ate the fruit which I told you not to eat. Because of what you have done, the
ground will be under a curse. You
will have to work hard all your life to make enough food for you (Genesis
First, if God has truly
punished man, children who die young do not work hard to produce food, right?
Second, if a person makes a
bunch of money early in his or her life, they will be comfortably well off and
not need to work for the rest of his or her life, which is not working hard all
of one's life, right?
Third, suppose (contrary to
the passage that says all your life) we interpret this passage as saying that
we adults have to work our whole lives in some way or other to obtain
food. Even so, there are people
with very rich parents who have never had to work a day in their lives and get
food. What's the upshot? Why isn't God's curse still in
effect? Is God not truly
all-powerful then?
Fourth, it seems that it is
just to punish a wrongdoer assuming that he or she is responsible for the
wrongdoing. But why is it just to
punish every
descendant that the wrongdoer will ever create in the future, in addition to
the wrongdoer? For example, am I
not unjust if I punish my grandkids for something that my kids did when they
were young? Is this not analogous
to what God is doing?
On
Killing: Thou shalt not kill,
except for unruly children ?
The
Bible states, If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey
his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen
to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the
elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, This son of ours
is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a
drunkard.' Then all the men of his
city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst
(Deuteronomy
First, does the fact that most
people find some action that is condoned in the Bible as barbaric, give us
sufficient evidence to question not only this commandment, but also others in
the Bible? If one's defense is,
Well, the Bible was written by humans, and therefore flawed, a great
follow-up question then arises:
How do we know WHICH part(s) of the Bible is/are flawed? Again, if one replies with, Well, just
use your reason to figure out what is and is not flawed, then a reasonable
response seems to be, Why should we not simply use our reason for figuring out
whether Christianity makes sense?
And, why then would it be rational and reasonable to believe that Jesus
is the Son of God, that we can drink any liquid and not be harmed if we are
baptized and believe in Jesus, etc.? (See related question below.)
Second, given that there are
exceptions to the no killing rule that God has made us aware of, how can we
be sure that the exceptions to killing in the Bible are the only exceptions, or
that we are not supposed to be using our reason to figure out when killing is
morally permissible or not?
First of all, if humans have
free will, and there is a dispute, say, between Christians and Muslims, then at
any point in time, the Muslims may change their mind and come to believe in
Jesus. So why would God cut that
possibility short?
Second, if Christians believe
(and if the Bible is correct then God believes the following as well) that the
afterlife is all that really matters, and poverty, illness, being spit on, etc.
are no big deal and in fact a small price to pay to gain entrance into heaven,
then what does it matter, not only that there are some people who do not
believe in Jesus as we live here, but also that some groups are attacking
Christianity (physically in the past, or verbally now)? These things (being poor, sick, killed,
etc.) do not matter if one has done God's will, so why would God ever condone
anyone's attacking anyone else, when nothing achieved in this lifetime really
matters (see, e.g., Mark 8:36), except that one believe in Jesus and do good
works (or whatever
the necessary and sufficient conditions are for being admitted to heaven)? (See
related question to faith and good works, above.)
Third, how can it be
compatible for one to believe that we should love one another as oneself (i.e.,
the greatest commandment) or that we should turn the other cheek when attacked,
as well as
that we should pray for God to help our culture/religion/country to win a war
(see Psalms 5:10, Condemn and punish them [my enemies], O God; see also
Psalms 17:13) or smite one's enemies (O Lord, you give me victory over my
enemies Psalms 18:47)? It must be
one or the other, right? Which one
is it, and how do we know?
On
counter-intuitive moral duties from the Bible: How could it be morally permissible to force a woman to
marry a man who raped her, and not allow a divorce thereafter?
The
Bible says, If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and
rapes her He must marry the girl He can never divorce her has long as he
lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
First, if this quotation is a
misprint or wrong, then how do we know it's wrong?
Second, how can we know that
everything else written in the Bible is correct?
Third, how could this possibly
be a good, sound, moral rule? Why
do we prosecute men who rape women and think that that is just, if this passage
is truly God's word?
On
the human touch influencing what gets into the Bible:
Suppose
cultural influences can be shown to affect what came to be in the Bible (and
research convinces me, at any rate, that many prohibitions, miracles, and other
things said in the Bible were chiefly or only said in order to be taken in a
certain way by another group, or to convince others of Jesus' power, etc.) Now, if that is shown, then how do we
know where this cultural influence stops and the real account of what really
happened starts? For example,
other people around the time of Jesus were said to be born of a virgin, to be
crucified, others claimed to be or were referred to as the Messiah, others
could do miracles, etc. [For
example, Apollonius of Tyana was said to be a Messiah, born of a virgin,
crucified, and resurrected: See http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/terms.html#Apollonius] So whom do we trust? Will the real Holy person please stand
up?
On
the literal v. metaphorical or figurative reading of the Bible:
Around
the year 1900, people started reading the Bible literally; until then it was
generally read metaphorically.
First, if we can show that
some part of the Bible is without a doubt to be taken figuratively, then how
can we be sure which parts in the rest of the work are to be taken literally
and which ones figuratively?
Second, do we then end up with
just being able to use our reason to sort out what Jesus wants from us, or even
whether to believe in any of it at all?
Why not?
Third, Jesus says, Everything
is possible for the person who has faith (Mark 9:23). How can we take this phrase
literally? Can I do logically
impossible things, such as create a rock so big that I myself cannot lift it,
create a squared circle, or make myself not be identical to myself at the same
time and in the same respect? How
about other things, such as these:
Can I bring people back from the dead, travel in time backwards, fly
faster than the speed of light, arrange a meeting with God, or better yet, make myself God? Assuming that you agree with me that
Jesus was not trying to tell us that EVERYTHING is possible with faith, then we
have to take him figuratively speaking, right? And thus starts the slippery slope.
The
Bible says, Let as many servants as are under the yoke [of slavery] count
their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine
be not blasphemed. And they that
have believing masters, let them not despise them but rather do them service,
because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent
not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but
doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings,
evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of
the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself I Timothy 6:1-5 (KJV). Also, related to this, it says, thou
shalt take an aul [awl], and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he
shall be thy servant for ever. Deuteronomy 15:17 (KJV). So slavery is morally permissible? Should we change our laws?
Jesus
said, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to set a man
at variance with against his father, and the daughter against her mother Matthew
10:34-35 (AV).
First, does one not have to
come up with an ad hoc explanation as to why God, assuming he is omni-benevolent,
would endorse violence against man?
If we're all sinners and our earthly existence does not matter much,
then why is it not enough to punish us upon our deaths?
Second, why would God, if he
intends to punish the wicked by causing a natural disaster (e.g., tornado,
flood, etc.), not be able to spare the believers and only punish the
non-believers? If he is
all-powerful, he can punish whomever he chooses, so why would indiscriminately
punish the non-believers?
According to the Bible, Jesus proved that he could bring a man back from
the dead (e.g., Lazarus), so if God is all-powerful, why can he not make it so? If an apologist answers that we do not
understand the ways of God [Who knows the mind of God? (Romans 11:34, 1
Corinthians 2:16 and Isaiah 29:14), or Matthew 19:26 with God all things are
possible], then how can we know ANYTHING about God from the Bible, since we
cannot explain WHY he punished whom he punished, and what he is doing? In other words, if we're so ignorant,
how can we ever explain ANY of God's actions, and how can we take the entire
Bible seriously?
Third, after one of those who
accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's
servant, cutting off his ear. Then
Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the
sword will perish by the sword' (Matthew 26:51-52) So, we have Jesus saying that he comes
to send a sword, set man at variance with father, daughter against mother, as
well as that he who take the sword will perish by the sword. How can we explain this (especially because if we assume
that Jesus did not lie, and he truly used the sword at some point, he was
punished by being put on a cross!)?
If we explain it by saying that the first passage is metaphorical or
figurative, see the other question above on metaphorically v. literally
interpreting the Bible.
Fourth, when a man ran up and
knelt before Jesus and asked him, Good Teacher, what must I do to receive
eternal life? Jesus responds,
Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mark
10:17-18) Why would Jesus say
this, assuming that he is the Son of God, or God (as part of the Trinity)? We have Jesus' own words, denying that
he is truly good. Why is that?
Fifth, God killed every living
creature other than Noah, his family, and the creatures on the ark. How can not killing be one of the
commandments, if God doesn't live by his own rules?
Sixth, why would God endorse
stoning rebellious sons if God is not violent (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)?
Seventh, why would God endorse
slavery, which implies beatings and whippings (I Timothy 6:1-5; see also
Deuteronomy 15:17)?
Eighth, why would God
essentially let Satan have his way with Job to make him suffer (and kill his
wife and children), just to see how he handles much suffering, just to see what
happens (Job 1:6-19)?
On
the All-Knowing quality of God and his Son: Why would God not know how nature works?
The
Bible says, The next day , Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find
out if it had any fruit. When he
reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for
figs. Then he said to the tree,
May no one ever eat fruit from you again. In the morning , they saw the fig tree withered from the
roots. Peter said to Jesus,
Rabbi, look! The fig tree has
withered! Mark
11:12-14, 20-21 (NIV).
First, assume Catholicism is
true: If Jesus, the Son of God is
part of the Holy Trinity, and God is all-knowing (See John
6:64: Jesus knew from the very
beginning who were the ones that would not believe and which one would betray
him. and Matthew 12:27:
So go to the lake and drop in a line. Pull up the first fish you hook, and in its mouth you will
find a coin worth enough for my Temple tax and yours.), then why would Jesus
not know how nature works? Why
would Jesus not know BEFORE he saw the tree whether or not it had figs on it, that it did not have figs on
it, why
it did not have figs on it, and when it would eventually have figs on it, if ever?
Second, was Jesus hungry, so
that he was somehow offended by the tree, so that because of his hunger, he
wanted to curse the tree? Is this
not childish and/or juvenile?
If God is All-Knowing and observes
our actions so God can judge us later, why would God not know where Adam and
Eve are and how they found out they were naked?
First, if God is all-knowing,
why would he not know where Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden? (Genesis
3:9)
Second, God said, Who told you
that you were naked? (Genesis 3:11)
If God is All-Knowing, why would
God use fallacious reasoning throughout the Old Testament?
The
Argument from Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) is a fallacy (i.e., form of
fallacious reasoning) that is committed when the arguer uses force to attempt
to win an argument. EX1: If you don't believe that pigs can
fly, I'll punch you! It is pretty
obvious that by getting someone to agree that you're right about your
conclusion only because you threaten them with physical or psychological
violence or abuse is to use faulty reasoning. The Biblical point that is rehearsed over and over in the
Old Testament is that if you do not believe in God and do what God says, God
will punish you in many and various ways.
First,
why should these threats of punishment convince anyone that God exists, that
God is All-Knowing, or that God is All-Good?
Second,
if these threats are the only reason one believes in God or Jesus, wouldn't God
or Jesus know that one is only trying to avoid pain and punishment, and why
should God/Jesus reward that person with eternal life because they were too
afraid to question the Bible's reasoning?
The
Ten Commandment, which believers claim that God commanded, is, Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's house, though shalt not covet they neighbour's wife, nor
his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing
that is thy neighbour's. Exodus
20:17 (AV) Here, a man's wife is
listed as property, or a thing.
Another reference: Wives,
be subordinate to your husbands (Ephesians 5:22; see also Colossians
3:18). The Bible also says, Women
should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law
says. If they want to inquire
about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV). If we lowly humans in the late 20th
century and now the 21st century think that it is sexist to think of women as a
man's property, how could God possibly think of a woman as a man's property?
Socrates
faced death very reasonably; that is, he told others around him to calm down
and stop crying; that one should die in good, omened silence (Phaedo 117d-e). Jesus, on the other hand, thought by
many to be the Son of God, all-powerful, all knowing, and all good, was
sorrowful in a garden the night before he was put to death. For example, he said, My soul is
sorrowful even to death (Mark 14:34). It continues:
He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were
possible the hour might pass by him; he said, Abba, Father, all things are
possible to you. Take this cup
away from me, but not what I will but what you will' (Mark
14:35-36). Second example: Matthew says he began to be
sorrowful and very heavy and then said, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful,
even to death; tarry ye here, and watch with me (Matthew 26:37-38).
First: Why would someone who KNEW that he was
saving the world, dying for peoples' sins, doing such a great service to
humanity, be sorrowful, when he gets to join his Father in Heaven (assuming
that he's not God, as the Holy Trinity doctrine holds that he is)?
Second, being all knowing,
Jesus certainly would have known that people would carry through with the plan,
how it would go, what it was like to die, etc., right?
Third, in a related point, why
would he say while on the cross, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
(Matthew 27:46) If he is the Son
of God, and he's all-powerful, all knowing, and all good, then how could he
possibly ask this question?
Fourth, if one assumes that
Jesus is not God, but the Son of God, and so different from God, then why would
God put Jesus through this? God is
all-powerful, all good, and all knowing, so why wouldn't God simply make the
experience painless for Jesus?
Fifth, from the Matthew
passage quoted in the third question above, why is there Jesus' will and God's
will? That's two wills, and if the
Holy Trinity is true, how can this be explained?
Sixth, Matthew says that he
asked God three times not to be crucified (Matthew 26:39-44). If we get whatever we pray for as long
as we believe in Jesus, and ask in the Lord's name, why wouldn't God grant the
same to Jesus? After all, Jesus
definitely believes in Jesus, and was asking God not to be the one to be
sacrificed, so why wouldn't God grant his prayer?
In
Mark 12:24, Jesus says, Therefore I tell you, all that you ask
for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. I find it difficult to believe that
someone has not prayed to Jesus, believing that Jesus would really help him or
her, and failed to receive that which he or she was praying. In other words, I believe that some
prayers have not been answered, but this passage does not allow for other
explanations or qualifications, such as, only for true believers, or unless
God feels like testing you, etc. does it?
Jesus
says in Mark 13:22-23, False messiahs and false prophets will
arise and will perform signs and wonders in order to mislead, if that were
possible, the elect. Be watchful! I have told it all to you
beforehand.
First, how do we know that
Muhammad, or Joseph Smith and (others who claim to be prophets) are not the false prophets that Jesus warns us about?
Second, it is also said that there
will be others besides me who will be true prophets (See, e.g., I Corinthians
12:8-10), and there were many prophecies from more than one prophet in the Old
Testament. So, how do we know that
these more recent prophets are wrong?
Third, it is also said that
one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually
to each person has he wishes (I Corinthians 12:11), where all of these
includes prophecies, the expression of wisdom, knowledge, faith, mighty deeds,
and so on (12:8-10). So how can
Jesus be correct that there will be false prophecies, if the Spirit produces
all of them?
In
Genesis, God said let there be light and there was light (1:3). But then God created stars afterwards
(1:14-15), and after that God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule
over the day and the moon to rule over the night (Genesis 1:16)
First, how did God create
light before he created the stars, sun, and moon?
Second, the moon is not a
light, but a reflector of light.
If this is God's Word, how can it be factually wrong? If it is
factually wrong, then (1) how can we trust the rest of the Bible since there's
a mistake, and/or (2) how can we continue to think that God is all knowing?
Third, the passage continues,
Evening passed and morning came – that was the fourth day (Genesis
1:19). How can days and evenings
be passing if the sun did not exist until the third day?
How
can only 144,000 people/souls be saved, as it says in Revelation 7:4
(especially when it says that 12 tribes of Israel will be sealed or saved
– Are any or all of the denominations of Christianity one or more of the
tribes of Israel and/or are all the twelve tribes of Israel still around (I
don't think they are)?), when if you believe that Jesus is your savior, you are
supposed to be able to be chosen to go to heaven? If there are 1,026,501,000 Roman Catholic Christians and
316,445,000 Protestant Christians in the world, then 144,000 seems a very low
number to save, especially if Jesus truly loves all his children and all it
takes is faith and (or not) good works, does it not? (Source for number of
Christians: http://www.spiritualworld.org/christianity/how_many.htm
)
In
the Old Testament, God changes his mind after talking to Abraham about his
proposed action to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20-33), and at other
points (e.g., he does not carry out his threat to Adam and Eve, that they will
die by the day's end). However, it
is a popular belief that God never changes. Which one is it, and how do we know?
1
John 3:15: Anyone who hates his
brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in
him. Also, Paul says, Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred,
variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings of the which I tell you before [sic], as I have also
told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21 KJV).
But God (or the Lord) hates six things and detests seven things, as it
is said in Proverbs: There are
six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands
that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are
quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs
up dissension among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-18) See also, Deuteronomy 12:31: You must not worship the Lord your God in their way,
because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the
Lord hates. They even burn their
sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. And, Deuteronomy 16:22: and do not erect a sacred stone, for
these the Lord your God hates. Lastly,
Psalm 11:5: The Lord examines the
righteous, but the wicked [Or [The] Lord [, the Righteous One, examines the
wicked,] ] and those who love violence his soul hates. How can we explain or understand this
inconsistency?
It
says at Exodus 34:14: Do not
worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous
God. It might be worse than it
first appears: Besides just being
a negative trait we might not want to see in a God, God might be being hypocritical,
unless Paul is wrong, when he says, Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness,
revellings of the which I tell you before [sic], as I have also told you in
time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God
(Galatians 5:19-21 KJV; emphasis added).
There
is the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, but this seems to change – see
below.
First, why in Matthew 19:18-19
does Jesus only mention 7 of the 10 commandments to a man who asks what he must
do to gain eternal life? Jesus
says there, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt commit no adultery, Thou shalt
not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother:
and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matthew 19:18-19; KJV) Did God (assuming Jesus knew the mind
of God, or was the Son of God, or was God) change his mind about what
commandments there were since the time of Moses?
Second, why in Matthew 22:37-40
does Jesus mention a commandment that is not mentioned in the original 10
commandments? He says the greatest
commandment in the law is Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Third, in The Catholic
Church Has the Answer,
by Paul Whitcomb (TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, 1986), it says that Jesus
proved
His divinity by His impeccable holiness and the flawless perfection of His
doctrine (p. 7). If Jesus has
flawless perfection when it comes to doctrine, why is he not consistent when he
describes the Law? How can it be
that there are (1) 7 Commandments AND (2) Ten Commandments, AND that (3) only
the greatest Commandment really matters?
In
Matthew, Jesus (paraphrasing) says to the man who wants to know what he has to
do in order to have eternal life, obey these seven commandments. The man then says, All these things I
have kept from my youth up; what lack I yet? Jesus responds, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come and follow me. But when the
young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great
possessions. Then Jesus said to
his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into
the kingdom of heaven. And again I
say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.' (Matthew 19:20-24; KJV)
First, how can anyone with
much money at all expect to gain eternal life?
Second, why does the Vatican,
the Church of Latter Day Saints, etc., have billions and billions of dollars
and really expensive churches, Temples and Cathedrals, if they value the Bible
and do not value money? Shouldn't
all that money be used to help the poor?
Jesus
says in Matthew, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
First, isn't God still God of
the universe, whether or not someone believes in God, is alive, or is dead?
Second, if God is not the God
of the dead is supposed to mean, God does not care about the dead, then why
does Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead?
For instance, why wouldn't Jesus merely convince the mother of Lazarus
that it doesn't matter that Lazarus is dead, or why didn't he say to her that
he is not the Lord of the dead?
Do
Christians really believe that drinking something harmful will not hurt
them? And why do we need medicine
anymore, assuming there are believers in Jesus who are baptized?
According
to Mark, chapter 16 (in the part that was later added to the Bible), after
Jesus is resurrected, he says, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. And these signs shall
follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall
speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover (Mark 16:15-18).
First, why don't Christians
put their money where their mouths are?
If there have been those who have taken or do take Jesus' own words
seriously, and are baptized believers, why has no one shown us that Jesus is
correct, by drinking a gallon of gasoline, some hemlock, some arsenic, etc.?
Second, if it says these people
will not be harmed, why shouldn't we be able to prove that this statement is
true, and as many times as is necessary to convince the whole world?
Third, why should someone not
challenge Bishops, ministers, the Pope, and others, to really show us the truth
of Jesus' words?
Fourth, on the other hand,
which is much more likely, if we can prove Jesus' words are wrong by someone's
death, then what else can we question that we see written in his name?
Fifth, do you really think
that a frog (i.e., a creature to whom we should preach the gospel) would
understand us if we preach to it?
Sixth, why do we need medicine
anymore, if baptized believers would just lay their hands on the sick? This would solve the medical insurance
debacle as well as save people a lot of money. We could also prove that what Jesus is said to have said is
either correct, or incorrect in this case as well.
In
reference to God, Isaiah says, And Jehovah of hosts revealed himself in mine
ears, Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven you till ye die, saith the
Lord, Jehovah of hosts (Isaiah 22:14).
In reference to Jesus, he says, that seeing they may see, and not
perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should
turn again, and it should be forgiven them (Mark 4:12); Therefore I say unto
you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy
against the Spirit shall not be forgiven (Matthew 12:31); And whosoever shall
speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever
shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in that which is to come (Matthew 12:32); and And every one
who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but
unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven
(Luke 12:10). However, in The
Catholic Church Has the Answer, by Paul Whitcomb (TAN Books and Publishers,
Rockford, 1986), it says that Christ will always forgive and return to a
sinner who approaches Him with sincerity in the Sacrament of Penance (p. 23).
First, how can Jesus both
forgive everyone and not forgive certain people for doing certain actions?
Second, what would make it
impossible for one to be sincerely sorry in Hell, so that Jesus might be
approached at that point (See also the God
is not God for the dead question below).
In
The Catholic Church Has the Answer, by Paul Whitcomb (TAN Books and Publishers,
Rockford, 1986), it says that Catholics know that, strictly speaking, God
never owes us anything (p. 26).
This implies that God can say things such as, Ask and it shall be given
to you, yours is the Kingdom of Heaven, and that even if you have fulfilled
every single law, every word of the Bible (which is arguably in fact
impossible, given the inconsistencies, and the unwillingness for people to kill
their sons if they are unruly, etc.), God doesn't have to admit you into
heaven.
First, how is anyone able to
see this statement as anything but a cop-out?
Second, wouldn't it be true
that not keeping one's word is an imperfection, and if so, how could God
possibly be able to do this while remaining perfect?
Third, how would it make sense
to claim that we should aim to tell the truth in all our dealings, given this
supposed divine loophole?
You
might think that your soul ascends to heaven, but it appears from the Bible in
certain spots that the body ascends:
The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was
driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the
dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles' [feathers], and his
nails like birds' [claws] (Daniel 4:33; my emphasis). See also, and he was driven from the
sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts', and his dwelling was with
the wild asses; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with
the dew of heaven; until he knew that the Most High God ruleth in the
kingdom of men, and that he setteth up over it whomsoever he will (Daniel
5:21; my emphasis).
First, what sense can at all
be made of MY BODY's going to heaven, if we mortals routinely watch everyone's
body at death not move, be burned, buried, or in general perish?
Second, assuming a physical
body ascends to heaven, would I need food and drink in heaven, and how do we
know this?
Third, why does it say in
Ecclesiastes 3:21 that How can anyone be sure that a man's spirit goes upward
while an animal's spirit goes down into the ground? and There is no way for
us to know what will happen after we die? (3:22)
First, even if only my soul
goes to heaven, will I have memories?
If I take my memories with me, so to speak, I will always be able to
remember bad things that happened to me, or others whom I loved, right? This would seem to be neither heavenly nor
desirable.
Second, if nothing changes in
heaven, it would certainly seem to be theoretically possible for one to get
bored of the same, elated, continual, experience (assuming that is what heaven
is), would it not? No matter what
experience you've ever had, if you experience nothing but that experience
continually, you will eventually get used to it, and find it to be expected,
the usual, the norm, etc. Will you
not need more excitement, stimulation, etc., at that point?
Third, what sense can be made
of Leibniz' comment, where he tries to justify the presence of evil on
earth: It is true that one may
imagine possible worlds without sin and without unhappiness, and one could make
some such Utopian romances; but these same worlds again would be very
inferior to ours in goodness. (from Theodicy, an excerpt of which is reprinted
in John Cottingham's Western Philosophy: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, 2000, pp. 281-282.) Heaven would seem to be a place that is without sin and
without unhappiness, so if our world (i.e., earth right now) is superior to
heaven in goodness, what sense can be made of that? If it's true that we can only know what goodness is by
knowing or experiencing evil, then must there not be evil in heaven? Lastly, note that if one says that
Leibniz is wrong about his argument, then it is not true that evil is necessary
for this world, and so, assuming God exists, whence comes evil in this
world? How could a perfectly good
God create evil on earth, if this is the best creation God could have made?
Fourth, suppose it is possible
for someone to desire to go to Hell.
Would not heaven be the appropriate place for this person/soul/body to
be placed?
Fifth, Jehovah said unto
Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people
shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them,
whether they will walk in my law, or not (Exodus 16:4; my emphasis). Also, God put the stars in the
firmament of heaven in Genesis. So
heaven is a physical place. How
can a soul go anywhere or be anywhere (heaven or hell), if it is an
immaterial thing? Next, related to
this passage, it says, Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any
likeness [of any thing] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exodus 20:4; see also
Deuteronomy 5:8), but it was just said that Jehovah would rain bread from
heaven. So should we not ever make
bread again?
Sixth, if, as most
fundamentalist Christians like to do, we take the Bible literally, there are
also stones
in heaven (Joshua 10:11) – why would we need these for eternal
happiness? The sun is there (Joshua 10:13),
thunder
(1 Samuel 2:10), a whole city went up there (Judges 20:40), water and birds (2 Samuel 21:10), foundations [Then the earth shook
and trembled, The foundations of heaven quaked And were shaken, because he was
wroth (2 Samuel 22:8)], a heaven of heavens – whatever that
means (!?) (1 Kings 8:27), fire (!!!) (2 Kings 1:12), a throne (Psalms 11:4), doors (Psalms 78:23), food (Psalms 78:24), pillars (Job 26:11), war with
a dragon
(!?) (Revelation 12:7), white horse (Revelation 19:11), armies (Revelation 19:14), and it's
possible to get there in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:1 and 2:11). Are we already IN heaven right now, if
we have birds, bread, water, stones, pillars, foundations, stones, war, white
horses, armies, etc.? Why does it
seem an awful lot like heaven is written of as if it were simply the sky, or
outer space? Lastly, hell is
said by Jesus to be a place where the worms that eat [the body] never die, and
the fire that burns them is never put out (Mark 9:48). If fire is a bad thing, why is it in
heaven as well as in hell (2 Kings 1:12)?
Seventh, more proof that
heaven is physical and created:
Physical: For ask now of
the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created
man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other,
whether there hath been [any such thing] as this great thing is, or hath been
heard like it? (Deuteronomy 4:32; my emphasis). There is no one end to the other of something that is
non-physical, right? Created: These are the generations of the
heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God
made earth and heaven (Genesis 2:4; my emphasis)
Eighth, if heaven is so
special, why does Jesus say, Heaven and earth will pass away (Mark 13:31; cf.
Matthew 24:35 and Luke 21:33). Two
interpretations seem likely: either there will be no more heaven, in which case it makes
no difference if we go there, or Jesus is claiming that all stars, galaxies,
etc. and space itself is going away.
Astronomers are relatively sure that the earth will not be here anymore
when the Sun expands before becoming a brown dwarf, which would imply that
Jesus is correct when he says that earth will pass away. However, this brings up another point: According to Christian theology, heaven
will supposedly be rebuilt on earth by God after Armageddon – why would God rebuild
on a trashed planet with no star to warm and sustain it? but if there IS no heaven, then there
won't be any
stars left to sustain any planet anywhere right?
God
made man from dust and water, i.e., mud, from a river on earth (Genesis). If God has a face, then God must be
physical: if my people, who are
called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive
their sin, and will heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14). Also, he says he fills heaven and
earth, so how can he create everything he fills? Can any hide himself in secret places so that I shall not
see him? saith Jehovah. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith Jehovah.
(Jeremiah 23:24) How can a
non-physical thing fill anything else, when it
does not occupy space? So God must
be at least physical, even if God has a soul.
God
cannot rest after creating the universe, if Aquinas' (i.e., a Christian Saint)
proof for God's existence is correct, right?
Suppose
Aquinas is correct that the first mover is God, and that something cannot put
something else into motion without itself actually being in motion. So God had to be actually in motion to
be the first mover of the second mover.
Suppose also that the standard Christian theology is correct, that God
never changes. Then it is impossible
for God to rest, since God would have to remain in motion.
First, is the Bible incorrect
about creation?
Second, is Aquinas wrong about
God's being the first mover?
Third, is Christian theology
wrong about God's nature being immutable?
Fourth, if God is in motion,
then how could he not be in time (assuming someone believes that God is beyond
time)?
If
Anselm's (i.e., another Christian Saint) definition of God (something than
which nothing greater can be thought) is correct, then Plotinus' view, that the
highest principle possible would actually be beyond being, is really what God
is (or rather is beyond), right?
Claiming that God exists implies that he cannot not exist, which limits
God. Just as God is said to be
eternal, or beyond time, assuming that is superior, why would not God be beyond
being as well? The problem of
course, is that the notion that God is beyond being conflicts with the Bible,
where it says, I am that I am (Exodus 3:14). So is the Christian Saint correct, or the Bible, and how do
we know?
Descartes
(a true man of the Church, according to Christopher Biffle, author of A
Guided Tour of Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, p. 3) says in his Meditations I know that I doubt
and I desire, that is, that I lack something and that I am not wholly perfect
(Meditations on First Philosophy, Donald Cress, trans., Hackett Publishing: Indianapolis, 1979, p. 30).
First, if we agree with
Descartes that I am imperfect because I doubt and desire, what does this imply
for God, if God desires or wants
anything at all (e.g., to grant goodness, good things, grace, forgiveness,
etc.) for us?
Second, isn't God imperfect by
desiring or needing anything at all (see also the questions involving God's
being a jealous God)? Why is this
a state of perfection?
If the Apostles
were truly aware of Jesus' teachings, and really believed that he was the Son
of God, why weren't ANY of them present for his crucifixion?
I have never heard an
explanation as to why the Apostles were not present for Jesus' crucifixion, to
pray for him, thank him, praise him, help him out, or encourage him, etc.
First, if it is answered that
they stayed away because they were too worried about dying, then apparently
they missed one of the most significant messages of Jesus, which is that this
life is only good insofar as one does the right thing(s) in order to join with
their Father again in heaven.
Judas and Peter denied Jesus, so it makes some sense that these guys
weren't present, but the rest of the Apostles failed to show up as well. If the Apostles did not have faith in
Jesus (e.g., they fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane, Judas betrayed him
and Peter denied him three times, etc.) and they were living in his presence,
how impressive is this for non-believers who are told that Jesus was amazing
and the Son of God? Also, Jesus
says, whoever wants to save his own life will lose it; but whoever loses his
life for me and for the gospel will save it (Mark 8:35). So, if the Apostles didn't lose their
lives for Jesus and follow the Gospel, then why should we?
Second, the Apostles were not
even at the tomb to witness the resurrection, in Mark's account of Jesus'
life. If much of Christianity is
predicated on Jesus' rising from the dead, why would the Apostles not be right
there to witness the resurrection, and even have others present so they could
be first-hand witnesses of this great happening? I wouldn't have left my friend's side if I really believed
in him, and thought I could be of any assistance, but if the Son of God is my
friend, I am certainly not going to fail him. So, what gives?
Didn't Jesus
(according to the NT) err in telling us when the Second Coming is coming?
Shouldn't the Second Coming have already come?
Jesus says: (1) 'Listen!' says Jesus. I am coming soon!' (Revelation 22:7;
cf. 22:12 and 22:20) (2) Truly, I
say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they
see that the Kingdom of God has come with power. (Mark 9:1; cf. Matthew 16:28,
Luke 9:27) And (3) Amen, I say to
you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
(Mark13:30; cf. Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32; my emphasis)
First, at what point will we
think that either Mark, Matthew, Luke and John (1) are mistaken about what
Jesus said, (2) or that Jesus is not really coming, (3) Jesus was wrong, or (4)
something else?
Second, is there any other way
in which to interpret soon, there are some standing here who will not taste
death, or this generation will not pass, in order to hold on to the view
that the Second Coming is still on its way?
Third, there have been many
people who have actually claimed to be Jesus, coming back to earth, and we have
put these people for the most part in mental institutions. How will we suddenly accept the real
Jesus even if he actually comes back, especially given that he preaches love
to all? Isn't the real Jesus of
the second coming in for another negative experience with everyone here on
earth? Isn't it conceivable that
even many Christians would call him a blasphemer and a heretic?
Fourth, there have been many
who have said that Jesus was coming, and he didn't come, starting, well,
according to Mark, with Jesus (then Paul, John, and many other s thereafter). There were those who predicted that it
would be in 1000 C.E., and also in 2000 C.E., but they were wrong. Should we ignore every warning then,
and just wait for the real Second Coming to happen?
Fifth, notice that Jesus does
NOT say that HE is going to be coming or establishing the Kingdom of God on
earth, but that the Kingdom of God will come into power. This is strange, given the way in which
Revelation describes his key role in the transformation.
Why
is the Bible so inconsistent and difficult to understand, if God is all-knowing
and wants his creation to know about him?
First, why are there over
30,000 sects of Christianity, if it is clear who Jesus was, and what his life
and message were about? How could
people who lived while Jesus was alive fail to understand what Jesus' life and
message were about, including his Apostles?
Second, why do so many rational
people not believe in God, assuming rational people are in some sense closer to
being all-knowing than irrational people?
Third, wouldn't God want his
Word to be very clear, consistent, and convincing?
Fourth, why then would he
change his mind (see above), say both that the Law (613 Old Testament Commandments)
is important to follow in the New Testament and that the Law is not important
to follow?
Fifth, in short, why would it
be possible for someone to find this many questions about the Bible if it were
so crystal clear, consistent and convincing?
BEFORE I CONCLUDE, I
would like to make it clear that this series of questions is not intended to
prove that Jesus was not a good person, or that everything that Jesus
supposedly claims in the New Testament is false and unsound advice as to how to
live. If people listened to Jesus
and really put his words into action when he said, Love one another as
yourself and that we should focus on our own faults before criticizing others,
among other things, the world would admittedly be a much better place. In fact, Jesus may have been a
misunderstood mystic whose life and words were used by others for their own
purposes. Be that as it may, the
way in which Christianity is practiced as an organized religion (with rules and
rituals that are not mentioned in the Bible – see, e.g., the history of
the Catholic Church that made up new rules about the afterlife and frequency of
church attendance in order to keep the offerings flowing ; the amazingly
coincidental revelations from God to the LDS leaders that spoke against
polygamy when the Federal Government threatened not to admit Utah into
statehood unless polygamy was not accepted in its organization, or their switch
after civil rights in the 1960's to allow African Americans to be elders, etc.)
and its use in politics is unjustifiable, in my view.
This is an acknowledgment of a debt to
Thomas Shoemaker for contributing to some of the ideas herein contained.