It's interesting that you say you're an atheist but you are writing about the Bible. I've seen a bit of that on the web.

@templestream - 

Thanks for the comment. I agree that it may seem unusual, but I'm a former believer. I once considered becoming a pastor! So the Bible has interested me for a while.

But there came a time in my life when I started to have doubts, especially with the question of suffering. The more I considered my faith, read from the Bible and read about the Bible, the more I realized it didn't make sense to me. I didn't see how a loving God could leave (or cause) people to suffer and die.

Reading and writing about the Bible is my way of really getting to know the book that I thought I believed in. Like many Christians, I had never read it the whole way through. I mostly relied on selected Bible verses from Sunday School, confirmation, sermons, etc. I know enough now to know I don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I want to read it so I can say specifically what parts I agree and disagree with. I've found a lot of stuff objectionable so far in Genesis, but I know there are more positive things in other books I'll eventually get to.

I also want to explore more what my thoughts are on different issues (good and evil in the world, etc.) and see things in a way I've never considered before. Reading the Bible helps me do this, and it also helps talking with and reading things by people with a wide variety of viewpoints.

So that's why an atheist is writing about the Bible! I'm not the first one, but it interests me.

You wrote "I didn't see how a loving God could leave (or cause) people to suffer and die." This is one of the main questions C.S. Lewis struggled with in his life. He wrote about it in book "Surprised by Joy" which you may want to read. Also, there is a movie "Shadowlands" about htis theme. Here's a quote from the movie:

"Isn't God supposed to be good?
              Isn't He supposed to love us?
              Does God want us to suffer?
              What if the answer to that question is yes?
              See, I'm not sure that God particularly wants us to be happy.
              I think He wants us to be able to love and be loved.
              He wants us to grow up.
              I suggest to you that it is because God loves us...
              that He makes us the gift of suffering.
              To put it another way, pain is God's megaphone...
              to rouse a deaf world.
              You see, we are like blocks of stone...
              out of which the sculptor carves the forms of men.
              The blows of His chisel, which hurt us so much...
              are what make us perfect.

in many books he addresses the theme of suffering, including this quote: "The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all dangers and perturbations of love is Hell." (CS Lewis, The Four Loves). But it's not just Christians who see a purpose in suffering...

“Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” - Kahlil Gibran

Hope these are of help.- Rick

@templestream - 

Thank you Rick. My brother was into C.S. Lewis for a while. I haven't read any of his works yet, but I would like to someday to see more what he says about various issues in Christianity.

Telling from your summary though, I think I would have to disagree with his explanation of pain.

Suffering is not a "gift." As I mentioned in my first post on Xanga, I had not one, but two dear family members die from cancer within a year of each other. One of them suffered for 3 years, much of which was spent in constant, excruciating pain. Towards the end, he was a shadow of the person he used to be and couldn't even function. What was God's message to him? How did this make him more perfect or grown up?

I understand trying to explain pain in this way, and considered a similar explanation myself while I was initially struggling with my belief. I'm not saying there are no cases in which something good comes out of a painful situation. But that doesn't explain *why* this would need to be the case. Certainly a perfect God wouldn't need to chisel away at his creation little by little to make it better, since this implies he created us imperfectly to begin with.

Besides, the analogy also fails because stones do not feel pain; humans do. A good God would not create us imperfect just so he could make us perfect through inflicting us with pain little by little until we get better. I would consider that torture to knowingly inflict pain on someone when it could have been avoided.

I would have to read more of Lewis to see what else he has to say on the issue, but the sculptor analogy doesn't work for me unfortunately. I appreciate the reference though, and it is something to think about.

@templestream - 

Thank you for your comments. I actually find it less depressing to think that suffering just happens naturally than to think it was inflicted on us by a higher being who could easily stop it, but chooses not to. I also disagree with the idea that Adam and Eve were given a truly "free" choice by God. It depends on one's definition of "free," I suppose.

First, as to whether Adam and Eve freely chose: the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were properly warned about what would happen. Adam was told "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17, KJV). This did not occur; instead, God punished Adam, Eve and all their descendants for the rest of our days with suffering and pain.

Perhaps if Adam and Eve knew what the punishment would actually be (not just death for them, but death and suffering for all their descendants forever), they might have chosen differently. God also did not warn them to beware of talking serpents: why would these as-yet sinless beings suspect that one of their fellow creations would lead them astray? If God had flat out told them what the two choices were, and warned them of the consequences, then I would consider it a free choice.

Second, at least according to most Christian doctrine as I understand it, no one is born with this choice anymore. Humans are "by nature sinful and unclean," as we used to recite in my church. There is no choice for us as babies or any other time to not rebel against God. I've heard the explanation that we would still choose to disobey God anyway even if it were not for original sin, in which case I don't really see it as a choice.

You mentioned that it wouldn't be good to be robots with no free choice. But that isn't the only alternative to billions of people suffering on Earth. God very well could have created us with free choice and not punished us with suffering if we strayed. He could simply have forgiven us, or given Adam and Eve a second chance. He also could have just simply abandoned us. Or since God kills in the Bible, although this wouldn't be my choice, he could have just killed Adam and Eve started over with more perfect beings that might choose not to disobey him.

I'm also a songwriter, and I feel that most of my best songs came out of some painful experience. But I've had plenty of painful experiences that did not result in songs. And I don't have the free choice whether not to suffer for that song, just as my relatives did not have the choice to not suffer for years. If heaven exists, God could have "taken them home" much sooner. I respect your views on heaven and suffering and once shared similar views. But now I find it difficult to believe that there is a God who chooses to let people suffer.

Thanks for your dialogue, it's been insightful for me in understanding the goodness and wisdom of God in fresh ways. You mentioned how you believe God is unfair for not warning Adam and Eve of all the consequences and ramifications of their sin. The total list of ramifications would be too long to list in its entirety. The Genesis account is a summary, not a detailed history. It does not say what additional information was given but it is quite possible that God did warn them in more detail.   The main idea is that God is to be obeyed simply because God is God. Father knows best, as the saying goes. I may try to warn my son about running into the street when he is very young. He has no clue what it means to be hit by a car so I count more on his trust and obedience than on his understanding of the situation. (How much more is the contrast between God's wisdom and my meager understanding) Though my son obviously doesn't know everything, he still has free choice based on what he knows. The biggest danger for my son is if and when he thinks he knows more than he actually does or if he wants his own way in spite of my warnings.   A person can be warned of distant pain and suffering but if a person has never seen it or experienced it, it may not do much good if the temptation is present, appealing and enticing, that’s just the way human nature is. Ultimately, true love is based on trust and commitment, not on how many warnings there are.   You mentioned that it seemed Adam and Eve didn’t die when they ate the forbidden fruit. Actually they did die in two ways. The process of natural death took over and more significantly they died spiritually. God asked “Where are you?” Not because God lost track of Adam but because Adam was lost spiritually and God wanted to deal with the situation. When Adam and Eve sinned, there was a separation of intimacy from God’s presence and love. This was the main reason Jesus came, to restore this connection through offering spiritual rebirth. Jesus said “You must be born again” in John 3. Many people have a wrong understanding that Christianity is following a set of rules or going to church on Sundays. True Christianity is all about being born again and enjoying fellowship with God spiritually and personally.   From your notes you seem to believe that suffering is the worst thing that can happen to a person. But there is something even worse than suffering and that is losing the connection with God’s presence. History is filled with testimonies of believers who have endured excruciating torture and yet had peace and actual joy in spite of the torture because their source of peace and joy was spiritual. If you want to read of these accounts read Fox’s Book of Martyrs. It’s difficult for me to describe the sense of feeling God’s presence and love. There is nothing on earth to compare it to. The lives of the martyrs make it clear that the spiritual reality is a higher reality than the physical reality. I can honestly say to you that I would rather choose to die a slow and painful death rather than to deny the God who has given me life and love.   In order to allow for this connection for God and man to be reestablished, God sent His own Son to suffer and die for you and me. God proved His love for us on the cross. It’s proven historically and empirically. As I wrote before, the sufferings of this earth are nothing compared to the glory of eternity with God. This life, even if filled with suffering, will not even be a distant memory for those who experience God’s love throughout eternity. I’ll pray that you overcome your resentment and become open to spiritual rebirth.

@templestream - 

Thank you also for your dialogue. I appreciate having an honest, civil discussion about religion and specifically about what many people have felt (including C.S. Lewis, from what you've said) is a very troubling issue.

Since we've only exchanged a few comments, and they have largely been about the topic that initially led me personally to my disbelief, I can understand that you think my disbelief is based on "resentment." I think it would be much more accurate to say though that incomprehension, and possibly some resentment, led me to question my belief.

But in the roughly 10 years since then, I have considered and read about a very wide variety of topics having to do with God's existence. I even had Campus Ministries youth pastors come speak to me on several occasions in an honest attempt to try to find answers in God that I simply wasn't finding on my own. I tried reading parts of the Bible and also reading about the Bible and God. The more I found out, the less it all made sense to me. I stopped searching for a while because I was afraid of losing my faith.

I also considered other non-Christian faiths in my search, but these also were unsatisfying intellectually. If there were a satisfying explanation for even a few of the large number of unanswered questions I have about God and religion, I would consider belief again. But as I'm re-reading the Bible, I'm finding out more that frankly shocks me, and even more unanswered questions.

Concerning your points about Genesis being a summary: The Bible is thousands of pages long. I'm sure there would have been plenty of room for a lengthy explanation of why it is that evil, sin, and suffering exist, and why God would have to send his Son to redeem us. Instead, the Fall of Man is left largely unexplained. The brief snapshot we're given doesn't make sense and seems rather unjust.

If God did tell Adam and Eve the consequences, there would certainly be room in the Bible for this. If he didn't tell them, I don't see how he can punish them. As a father, I'm sure you tell your son not to talk to strangers. God could simply have told Adam and Eve not to talk to serpents or do anything they say. If God told them this, a brief sentence or two in Genesis could convey that to the reader. I'm also sure if your son did talk to a stranger and you found out, you wouldn't kick him out of the house and force him to toil for the rest of his days. You may punish him, but not eternally. Even if Jesus does save us in the afterlife, God still punishes us in this life in your worldview, as I understand it.

You mentioned that Adam and Eve died in two ways, physically and spiritually. The former is God's doing, according to the Bible. He didn't want men "to be like us" and live forever once man had sinned. God decided to take away Adam and Eve's eternal life as punishment. In terms of spiritually, the Bible says very little about what happened to Adam and Eve after they left the garden. God regularly spoke to Abraham, from what I've (re)read in the Bible so far. It would be interesting to know if God had this sort of relationship with Adam, but it's not stated. If Adam was lost spiritually as you suggest, I think it's understandable since he and his wife had been in paradise and were forced out by his allegedly loving creator.

You say that "God proved His love for us on the cross. It’s proven historically and empirically." This is the problem, though: it's not proven historically or empirically from what I can gather. I've listened to and read a number of atheist and Christian debates about this topic, and there seems to be little objective confirmation outside the Bible of the events of Jesus' life as described in the New Testament. The few possible candidates for outside confirmation, Christian scholars admit have been tampered with (although they claim you can still glean the original intent from them). I'll be moving on to Matthew soon after I finish Genesis and will be exploring this a little more.

In some cases, including the events surrounding the Resurrection, the Bible very clearly contradicts itself. It's another one of those cases where if there were any compelling reason for me to consider believing, I would. But even if we take it at face value, we have God forcing his Son to die so that he'll forgive us. All God would need to do is forgive us, but he either can't or is unwilling to. This doesn't make sense to me. God does not seem to be love in the Bible, God is punishment. The loving God I used to believe in doesn't seem to exist.

As for the martyrs, I am sincerely glad that they found some comfort in their faith through their suffering, and that you also find strength in your faith. As these protestant martyrs are proof of, religion does not have this effect on everyone. Some honestly see their religion as a reason for exacting wrath on those whose points of view differ. That said, I know that religion for a great number of people can be inspiring and a source of strength. Most Christians I know have not read the Bible, and I'm sure would be surprised at some of the stories I have read just in the book of Genesis so far. Most people like me are taught religion as a child, before they really have an informed choice on whether or not to believe. You seem to be very knowledgeable about religion, more so than I am, but I am continuing my self-education by examining the Bible and related documents (I wish I had more time to do this!). If you are somehow able to read the Bible and find a positive, peaceful, and loving message from it, I am happy for you.

@iamtheblog - 

In re-reading, I realize it would be more accurate to say the Bible is over a thousand pages long (I said thousands, but I believe that would apply only to study Bibles and such). My point was that since there are already a large number of pages, it would have been possible to discuss at length an issue as important as the Fall of Man.

One last quick note: my goal in doing this blog is to explore the Bible and Christianity with a critical eye. I do sometimes come across positive things, but I'm looking at it from a skeptical point of view. So when I criticize the Bible or Christianity and some of the things it says, I don't mean for it to seem like an attack on you or your beliefs. I'm trying to work through the arguments myself and seeing why I do or don't believe something, and if I reject something I like to explain why both for the person I'm talking to and for myself. Sometimes my views do evolve on things as read what others write and as I think about what I'm going to say. Even if I don't share your beliefs, I respect your right to believe them, just as I hope you respect my disbelief.

Hi, that was a really quick relply. If you doubt that Jesus was a real historical person or that the resurrection really occurred, you may want to seriously look into both sides of the debate. Two of the most highly recommended books from the Christian perspective are "Who Moved the Stone?" and "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." Have you ever read either one?

@templestream - 

Hi, thank you for your fast reply in return! I happened to have a free minute after you posted, and it's hard to find those recently during the week, so I decided to reply quickly while I had the chance.

For the two sources you cited, I have not read these. Nearly all of my information both pro and con Christianity has come from the Web. One good thing about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is that they often have links to "Christian responses", and I also seek out others on the Internet through search engines. I realize this is inadequate for a full analysis, but I do plan on exploring things more soon.

From what I have read in the past, it seems that most historians believe there was a man named Jesus who existed. But whether or not Jesus actually existed as he is described in the Bible (with his miracles, resurrection, etc.) is another question. I am confident that if he did exist, the story of his resurrection as presented in the New Testament cannot be true simply because there are irreconcilable contradictions: in terms of the timeline of events as well as the events themselves (the stone, number of messengers, who Jesus appeared to when, etc.). Either some or all of the books dealing with Jesus' death and resurrection are wrong about how his life ended and what happened thereafter.

I have read and re-read the relevant passages in the Bible and read explanations on both sides on the Internet. I would be interested though in reading more about the Christian explanation of why these inconsistencies exist, which I'm sure the books you mentioned would address. Thank you for suggesting these.

My main goal for now is to get through reading the whole Bible and blogging on it. I know some parts well, others hardly or not at all. Unless I pick up the pace, this may take a couple of years to finish! I simply don't have the time right now to go much beyond the text itself. So I think I have to put my emphasis mostly on the Bible itself. It may not be for a while that I come back and delve into some issues more in-depth. I think once I've gotten through the whole Bible, it will make investigating issues a lot easier and fruitful; I should hopefully have a strong basis going into the further analysis.

I do appreciate you taking the time to make comments and suggestions. I look forward to reading more about them!

"For the two sources you cited, I have not read these. Nearly all of my information both pro and con Christianity has come from the Web." For a really in depth look at the evidence for the resurrection I think it would be difficult to rely solely on web articles. Another book I didn't mention is "More Than a Carpenter." The referenced books were written by people who at first tried to disprove Christianity by research and then ended up changing their minds when they looked into the hard facts.

@templestream - 

My reply didn't display the quotes correctly, so I'm reposting it.

As interesting as I'm sure these books are, the hard fact remains that there are contradictions in the Resurrection account. Why would what is allegedly the most important story of the Bible not even hold up as compared to itself? Do these books admit the contradictions, or try to say they don't exist? Unless the conclusion of the books is that some of all of the accounts of Jesus' life and Resurrection are wrong, but Jesus' Resurrection occurred anyway, then I would remain highly skeptical about any of their claims.

I see that this new book you mentioned is by the same author (Josh McDowell) as one of the previous ones you mentioned, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." I've just read an an article by him and am unconvinced. The evidence he mentions in this article largely consists of suppositions and not "evidence."

« Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned." »

This is not evidence, this is guesswork. What proof outside the Bible is there that people in Jerusalem outside of Jesus' circle had even heard about the Resurrection, much less that they accepted it as a fact? If there was such proof, I'm sure Althaus would mention it in lieu of his speculation on how people would have reacted if they rejected it.

« Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." »

I've read on both skeptic and Christian sites that the Josephus reference to Jesus as being Christ is highly disputed, even among Christian scholars. Does McDowell address this in his books? 5th century Jewish writings happened long after the event...

« No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection. »

Paul tells us that he used to hate Christ. Is there independent confirmation of this? If not, then it's not a hard fact. If so, it still doesn't prove the resurrection. I used to believe in Christ's resurrection, now I don't. The fact that he was or wasn't resurrected didn't change just because my views on it did, just as Paul's conversion doesn't change it either.

The article mentions Paul's claim of 500 witnesses as proof:

« Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." »

This quotation is very misleading. Paul's letter to the Corinthians doesn't give a list of 500 names. The list of 500 names is not "historical evidence", since there is no list. The text only mentions two people by name: Peter and James. The only other ones mentioned are the (other) disciples and Paul. Paul promises to his readers that most of the 500 people are still alive. This is all very weak evidence. Strong evidence would be a second extrabiblical source confirming that 500 people saw the risen Jesus.

I hope his books provide a better quality of evidence than this article does. I am skeptical, but open to actual evidence of it happening or convincing arguments as to why it would allegedly be needed to save our sins. The weak proof from this article, the Bible, and other sources I've read doesn't mean Jesus wasn't resurrected, but it doesn't go towards convincing me of Christ's resurrection. Because I am interested in Christian perspectives, and McDowell appears to be a very popular voice, I'm sure though that I will read more by him at some point. Thank you again for suggesting it.

@templestream - 

Your reply is rather unfair, templestream.

First, the article is not a "web article". If you would have looked closely at the link I provided, you would have seen that it was first published in 1992 by Josh McDowell Ministry.

Second, even if this weren't a print piece published by the author you yourself cited, information found on the web is not automatically inaccurate or unuseful just because of the medium via which it is transmitted.

Third, I spent several hours reading, analyzing, and commenting on the article to get a taste of what would lie in store if I were to read the author's book(s). If the author doesn't think this article is worthy to be read, he should take it off his own website.

Fourth, appeals to authority do not prove or disprove God's existence. Einstein's views on religion are complex, from what I've read. Newton by the way did not believe in the Trinity, which a quick search on your blog seems to contradict your own views. I assume you won't stop believing in the Trinity just because Newton didn't. Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan, two other great scientific minds, didn't believe in religion. I won't start believing in a higher power again just because some great minds did, just as you won't stop believing just because some great minds didn't.

Fifth, I said I would continue spending a sizable chunk of what little free time I have reading the Bible and reflecting on it. Due to my work and other obligations, I sometimes don't get more than 4 hours of sleep at night, so I need to choose my non-work activities carefully. I have 4 books I got for the holidays that I still haven't cracked open, but I am determined to get through the Bible. Reading it, and not books about it, is my top priority in terms of things I'm not obligated to do. If you think this is a waste of time, then that is your opinion. I think if I read the Bible and reflect on it, and then consult other books more in-depth, I will get a lot more out of it. I've dabbled in the Bible before; I feel like I'm at the beginning of my serious exploration of the Bible. And I want to read through it and do it right this time, unlike when I was a believer.

Lastly, you say, "One web article won't even be able to counter the years of brain washing that occurs in the school systems." As I mentioned, I used to believe strongly in God. I mention elsewhere on my blog that I went to church and Sunday School as a kid, I was confirmed, and I seriously considered becoming a pastor. I prayed to God almost every night for a long time in my life. I made it through high school still a Christian. So, school did not brainwash me against religion. After a childhood and early adulthood of belief, when something bad happened to two people in my life that my religion couldn't explain, I finally started to think for myself and started to turn away from religion. Now, I try to base my worldview on what makes sense, not what I'm told I'm supposed to believe. I'm not sure why you think requiring something to either make sense or be proven (or preferably both) before I believe it is proof of brainwashing.

I do sincerely appreciate the dialogue we've had and the sources you've recommended. Even though you apparently don't believe me, I will investigate this and other issues when I have time. For now, I want to read the Bible, understand the Bible as it stands, and then read more into what both Christians and non-Christians say about it. That doesn't mean I won't consult some sources along the way, but I don't think you should try to make me feel bad because of this.