"Letters From a Skeptic": Book Discussion

Komodo said:
Remarkable that people like Boyd feel they have to write hundreds of pages, when a "reason" like that was available
Click to expand...

Isn't it though? I was once standing knee-deep in a river of water while dying of thirst. Even thousands of pages of apologetics would not avail. The mind was willing, but the heart was hardened.
 
Komodo said:
Let's begin with skeptical Edward's first problem:

Here’s one I’ve wondered about a lot: How could an all-powerful and all-loving God allow the church to do so much harm to humanity for so long? Isn’t this supposed to be His true church, His representation on earth?

[I'm putting the comments of Gregory and Edward in different typefaces here so you can tell at a glance who is writing.]

Gregory's answer:

My first and primary response is that I don’t think God can be held responsible for what the Catholic Church—or any church, or any religion whatsoever—has done or shall do. From my perspective, the God whom the Bible talks about, and whom Jesus Christ incarnates, is a God of love, and this entails that He is a God of freedom, for you cannot have love without freedom.

I think Gregory here is treating his father's comment as, essentially, an objection to theism based on the problem of evil: Why does a good God permit evil things to happen? And he gives a traditional response: evil is a necessary consequence of human free will, which is the greater good. And there's a lot we could say about that, but it seems to me that Gregory is somewhat off base.
Click to expand...
What I found interesting before Edward even asked Greg a question was his comment, “As you know, I admire the education you’ve pursued, Greg, and I have often wondered how it is that you could continue to believe in this Christianity business in spite of the rather liberal institutions you’ve attended. It baffles me. I find the whole thing pretty implausible.” (Greg has graduate degrees from Yale and Princeton.) This ‘bafflement’ should serve to cause his father to consider that perhaps this ‘Christianity business’ or at the very least God might exist.

I think Edward’s background in Roman Catholicism is something that should be mentioned as well. After Edward asked his question that you quoted. He went on about “Christianity” slaughtering Muslims and Jews, women and children included, during the Crusades, the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition, and the lack of protest of the church against the Holocaust being a tacit allowance of it by “looking the other way”. “ It was this church…that decided which books were ‘divine’ and should constitute the “Holy Bible”. Ouch! I like that Edward doesn’t hold back his contempt of the church.

Here is an outline of Greg's main points:

1. God cannot be held responsible for what the Catholic church or any church or religion do.
2. All evil in the world comes from free wills other than God.
3. Whatever God wills or does is always good. Whatever is not good has its origins in someone or thing other than God.
4. Christianity is not a religion or an institution. It is a relationship.
5. Genuine Christians are those who have a saving, transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. These Christians account for the tremendous good Christianity has brought into the world.

Greg is not willing to defend those who call themselves Christian and do evil. Greg goes on to say that he is just as enraged by the evils Edward wrote about in his letter. I agree with every point Greg made and his short arguments for them.

I disagree with your understanding of what Greg said. Greg didn't write or even imply that "evil is a necessary consequence of human free will, which is the greater good." I wanted to respond to what you wrote yesterday, but I had to go back and reread the correspondence between Greg and Edward to make sure I didn't miss anything. Greg would say the consequence of human free will does allow choosing evil but not that it is for the greater good. Maybe you could explain a little more what you meant by that statement. I could be misinterpreting your meaning.
 
Komodo said:
Edward's argument isn't so much that terrible things are being done, it's that we would expect the history of humanity to look differently if the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, and the introduction of Christianity, were really the central events in that history.
Click to expand...
I agree.

"Christianity" took its eyes off Christ when the Roman emperor, Constantine, made the religion of Christianity legal when he issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE. It was said of the early church before Constantine, “These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also" Acts 17:16 NRSVUE The early church during the times of the apostles did the works of Christ and many converts were made. If you follow in the book of Acts the journeys of Paul as he spread the gospel, you can see what the church should look like. There are books written on what are called "revivals" in which you can see the same things taking place that took place in the early church. I'm saddened that the fellowship and works of the early church doesn't seem to be the norm throughout history.

There are reasons given for this "lukewarmness" in the book of Revelation chapters 2-3.

reknew.org

The Problem with "Church" - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Many people think of church as a religious building people attend once a week to sing, hear a sermon, take an offering and perhaps participate in the Lord’s Supper (or “take Communion”). Many refer to the church as “the house of the Lord,” imagining that God is more present in this sacred...
reknew.org reknew.org

I'm responding to your post by breaking it up so I don't get the Ooops message.
 
Komodo said:
We would expect the history of humanity to look differently if the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, and the introduction of Christianity, were really the central events in that history. I don't know if there's a term for this, but I'll give it one: The Problem of Coherence. Let me try to explain with an analogy.

You're reading a novel, in which a character is introduced as "someone who will be of the most crucial importance in this story." We read about his looks, his conversations with other characters, his favorite desserts etc. But nothing that he does seems to matter to the plot of the novel. So you say to yourself, "this novelist doesn't really know what he's doing; a story in which the supposed main character doesn't do anything that matters is just an incoherent narrative."
Click to expand...

Even Seinfeld, a show about nothing, could make something out of nothing entertaining.

I think Greg was spot on in how he answered Edward's question. Your observation is different than Edward's, imo. You are not looking at what actually happened but you are looking for what you would expect to see if Christianity is a real move of God. One thing you should expect to see if Christianity is not of God is its disappearance. It should have dissolved long ago. As Gamaliel said, "So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. 39 But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” Acts 5
Komodo said:
So, to Edward (and to many nonbelievers, including me), it doesn't seem as if this world has an "author" who knows what He is doing, who's in charge of the plot. Again, if the incarnation and resurrection are the main events in the story, shouldn't it look that way? Shouldn't there be some qualitative break between B.C. and A.D., as reflected -- for example -- in a church which bore some signs of God's favor and inspiration?
Click to expand...
I would expect those "signs of God's favor and inspiration" to be a church that looks and acts like Jesus. A church that is full of disciples of Jesus and full of the Holy Spirit spreading the message of the gospel in the same way the early disciples did.

The Reformation was a major movement by those who were frustrated with the politics of the Roman Catholic church to change things. I don't know enough about it but I think it failed in that the core message should always be about Jesus and the church are the followers of Jesus.
Komodo said:
It seems to me that the only possible answers to this would be either 1) "yes there are signs of that 'break,' and the 'plot' does make sense, you just aren't seeing it," or 2) "no, there's no reason to expect that there would be any such signs." What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think it is a shame that the church doesn't resemble the early church's disciples in ALL of the Christian world. There are definitely genuine followers of Christ on the earth right now. You have to ask God to show you where they are. He has been known to do that.

As for Greg Boyd, he is a genuine Christian. I used to listen to his sermons online that are archived on the website of the church he pastors. He spent one whole year teaching on love, a core principle in the New Testament. He wrote a book on it called "Repenting of Religion". When I listened to all of those sermons on love, maybe 10 years ago, I was blown away! I had not heard anyone teach on love like he did. He might convince you that there are genuine Christians in the world doing the work of Christ in helping the poor and spreading the gospel. His church has many 'ministries' in reaching out to help those in need...feeding the hungry, clothing those in need, helping the homeless...etc. You can find out all about it.

whchurch.org

Home - Woodland Hills Church

Welcome! We hope that by participating in our community you’ll come to realize how much God loves you, and how much he wants you to participate in his beautiful Kingdom.
whchurch.org whchurch.org
 
Caroljeen said:
What I found interesting before Edward even asked Greg a question was his comment, “As you know, I admire the education you’ve pursued, Greg, and I have often wondered how it is that you could continue to believe in this Christianity business in spite of the rather liberal institutions you’ve attended. It baffles me. I find the whole thing pretty implausible.” (Greg has graduate degrees from Yale and Princeton.) This ‘bafflement’ should serve to cause his father to consider that perhaps this ‘Christianity business’ or at the very least God might exist.
Click to expand...
Edward's intimate personal knowledge of his son complicates the reaction, but I imagine Edward recognized, even before his son converted, that there were Christians who were smarter, more knowledgeable and better human beings than he was. Certainly I recognize this. But I also recognize that the same is true of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. Maybe even scientologists. So this is a "perhaps" which I don't feel very moved to consider, at least not on that basis.

[Skipping some...]
Caroljeen said:
Here is an outline of Greg's main points:

1. God cannot be held responsible for what the Catholic church or any church or religion do.
2. All evil in the world comes from free wills other than God.
3. Whatever God wills or does is always good. Whatever is not good has its origins in someone or thing other than God.
4. Christianity is not a religion or an institution. It is a relationship.
5. Genuine Christians are those who have a saving, transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. These Christians account for the tremendous good Christianity has brought into the world.

Greg is not willing to defend those who call themselves Christian and do evil.
Click to expand...
No he is not, but Edward's challenge was to see if Greg had a persuasive account for why so much evil was done by Christians and Christian churches. And his explanation invokes free will, as seen in point #2.

Caroljeen said:
I disagree with your understanding of what Greg said. Greg didn't write or even imply that "evil is a necessary consequence of human free will, which is the greater good."
Click to expand...
If your objection is that Greg does not say that free will in itself is the greater good, OK; more precisely, he says that free will is required for the greater good, which is human beings who have the capacity to love. I don't think this distinction matters greatly, though. Greg's claim is that in order for there to be a creation of maximal goodness, there had to be free will, even though a creation with free will would necessarily produce great evil.

I don't think this is a good argument, and presumably we'll get into that, but I'd like to stop to make a narrower objection: how is this view compatible with Christian teaching about the Fall? If all of God's human creatures will always possess free will, and if creatures with free will necessarily commit great evil at times, then it doesn't appear there could have been a Paradise Lost. Whether Adam and Eve ate the fruit or not, the world of their descendants was always going to be one with corruption and rape and murder and war and genocide.

[I may be slow in getting to your other posts, sorry.]
 
Komodo said:
. . . I don't think this is a good argument, and presumably we'll get into that, but I'd like to stop to make a narrower objection: how is this view compatible with Christian teaching about the Fall?
Click to expand...
By the way, when I tried to do a search for articles about "St. Paul + Fall" I was directed to information about autumn in Minnesota.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
So can I. Karl Marx, Frederich Nietzsche, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot ...............

Hard to find a Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer among you atheists.
Click to expand...
The tit-for-tat of good vs. evil in some atheist vs. theist contest isn’t the point under focus. The point is your god has no transformative powers even in the lives of those that call upon him or a church that claims his presence and guidance.

The question hidden in you response is why does a personal calling forth for the transformative power of your god work with some people and not for others? The answer is simple. Some people are just pre-disposed to their own evil and there is no transformative power that your god can do about it - even if the beseecher gets sick of himself and invites your god in. Some people just have the personal power to change their situation regardless of any Hail Mary calls. God didn’t show up in either case of the good beseecher or the bad one.

This is why Christians add the caveat that you must be open and willing to change. Well that’s convenient. Take someone who is open and willing to change and say those are the instances where god worked. Sounds like the god claimed in these instances is just the power of one's own volition then.
 
Last edited:
5wize said:
The tit-for-tat of good vs. evil in some atheist vs. theist contest isn’t the point under focus. The point is your god has no transformative powers .....
...
Click to expand...

Wrong. He transformed the hell out of me, pun intended.

5wize said:
The question hidden in you response is why does a personal calling forth for the transformative power of your god work with some people and not for others?
Click to expand...

Easy answer: Depends on the hardness of the heart of the free will agent.

5wize said:
The answer is simple. Some people are just pre-disposed to their own evil and there is no transformative power that your god can do about it - even if the beseecher gets sick of himself and invites your god in.
Click to expand...

Correct. Such is the nature of free will.

5wize said:
Some people just have the personal power to change their situation regardless of any Hail Mary calls. God didn’t show up in either case of the good beseecher or the bad one.
Click to expand...

No. He shows up in every situation. He is omnipresent.

5wize said:
This is why Christians add the caveat that you must be open and willing to change.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's because we understand free will.

5wize said:
Well that’s convenient.
Click to expand...

In spite of Al Gore's movie title, the truth is always convenient.


5wize said:
Take someone who is open and willing to change and say those are the instances where god worked.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's all it takes.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Wrong. He transformed the hell out of me, pun intended.



Easy answer: Depends on the hardness of the heart of the free will agent.



Correct. Such is the nature of free will.



No. He shows up in every situation. He is omnipresent.



Correct. That's because we understand free will.



In spite of Al Gore's movie title, the truth is always convenient.




Yep. That's all it takes.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm... so your god is fully explicable as to be whatever we humans do... or don’t do. That’s what I thought.
 
Caroljeen said:
.....

Here is an outline of Greg's main points:

1. God cannot be held responsible for what the Catholic church or any church or religion do.
2. All evil in the world comes from free wills other than God.
3. Whatever God wills or does is always good. Whatever is not good has its origins in someone or thing other than God.
4. Christianity is not a religion or an institution. It is a relationship.
5. Genuine Christians are those who have a saving, transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. These Christians account for the tremendous good Christianity has brought into the world.
Click to expand...
1. Catholic Church (or any other church) presents itself as an organization through which God acts in this world. So, if a priest molests a child and then warns the child not to tell this to anyone or God will punish them, God is responsible for not doing anything about it. Assuming this God exists of course. If an organization knows it's executive members are rotten, and is not doing anything about that, then the head of the organization is responsible.
2. God is responsible for the worst of evils. Hell was created by God, and that place has unending torment and suffering. This is God's idea and plan and design. So, he is responsible. Secondly, we read in the Old Testament, Numbers 15, a man had to be put to death for gathering sticks on a Saturday. That punishment was evil. The people killing the man were doing so at God's command, so God is responsible for this evil. God is responsible for this universe too. I did not ask to be born, yet, he caused me to come to existence and then chose not to make himself reasonably known to me, allowing for me to die in my unbelief, resulting in an eternal punishment. If I go to hell, God is responsible for it.
3.According to the Bible, God wills what God wills. He doesn't need to explain or justify things to anyone. For instance, he can have all of Job's family wiped out so that he can make a theological point. How was this good? It wasn't.
4. Christianity is a religion. It requires faith just like any other religion.
5. Genuine Christians were fighting in the bloodiest war of the last Century too. Nazi Germany's Christians were mostly genuine Christians too. Oh, and Martin Luther who 'loved' the Jews so much, was too a genuine Christian.
 
Last edited:
stiggy wiggy said:
I can make no sense out of that comment. Be or do? Essence or deed?
Click to expand...
O.K. Let me put it this way. The god you describe as acting in this world is completely indistinguishable from a world with no god acting in it at all. He lets us be us, he lets the world be the world, and just waits till we drop dead to step up to the plate to judge.... his only real activity at all, ever.... never discernible, never witnessed.
 
5wize said:
O.K. Let me put it this way. The god you describe as having created, and as acting in, this world is completely indistinguishable from a world with no god at all. He lets us be us and just waits till we die to judge .....
Click to expand...

WRONG. He judges me on a daily, sometimes hourly basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top