[LargeTrout – I’ve attempted to address some of your concerns below. Please forgive me if I sound a bit impetuous. I do not intend for it to be so, only earnest.]
I've never believed faith itself to be emotional, although having been a Pentecostal for a number of years myself, I do understand there is an emotional aspect of Christianity.
Regarding specific beliefs - the basic requirement of salvation, as found in Romans 10, is to believe in the resurrection of Jesus and declare that he is Lord. So technically there is a specific faith demand as a basis for salvation. As the writer of Hebrews says, "without faith it is impossible to please God". So in order to please God I must have faith, and, as I have said, much of the Bible requires faith in things for which there is just no evidence.
Taking a sole passage by itself and holding it up without considering the larger implications of the full context is bad hermeneutics. Relying on Romans 10 alone is like you taking an American flag, cutting out a square portion from the middle of it, and waving the square while claiming that you actually have THE flag in your hand. Yes…but NO! You have the essence of the flag, but not the flag in full. Same with Romans 10. If we take the entire book of Romans, from beginning to end, there is more than enough additional dialectical material to support that Paul also assumed that positive actions, ‘good works’, etc. is a necessary part of the faith response (eg. Rom 2:4-16; 6:17-18,21-22; 8:3-4, 12:1-15:6) . Again, I assert that the best meaning of ‘faith’ is a totalistic response, one which includes using our brains, holding correct beliefs, doing good works, and trusting God (and there may be another element or two). In fact, Paul at times appeals to the rational side of belief in encouraging people to have faith (1 Cor 15).
The New Testament is somewhat contradictory on the matter of salvation. Faith is clearly a requirement, but some of the New Testament's authors disagree as to whether works are also required. Paul is quite clear that faith in Jesus is the only requirement for salvation, which rules out the need for any moral behaviour on the part of the Christian. Jesus insisted that obedience to his commandments *as well as faith* would grant a person salvation. James states that faith and works must go together. Admittedly these discrepancies are not huge, but they are certainly puzzling when examined closely. The different New Testament writers all seemed to have varying ideas of what actually saves a person in God's eyes, but they are all clear on one thing - the need for faith.
I wouldn’t say that the N.T. is contradictory, rather I think it is more accurate to say that it does not present a single formula to be articulated in just one way. The faith to salvation dynamic is complex, and because it is complex, it can be approached from different directions. It is not clearly contradictory. You yourself say that these apparent discrepancies are not huge—I’m not sure what the word ‘huge’ is exactly supposed to denote in your statement, but I do agree that all of the N.T. writers claim the “need for faith.”
Scientifically speaking, atoms can be tested and observed. That was the point I was trying to make.
Point taken. I understand that, and I would agree. But, the N.T. is mostly a set of historical documents, not a collection of science observations in the here and now. (Although, I think Jesus does imply a moral test in the Gospel of John at 7:16-17)
Morality is an evolutionary and cultural construct.
That is a theoretical assumption, not a hard and fast fact of life. It sounds in in anthropology though.
I've read C S Lewis and I'm just not convinced that moral behaviour stems from one source (i.e., God).
Well, of course ‘moral behavior’ does not stem from one source—behavior is dependent upon the thoughts and motivation of the moral actor. Rather, it is ‘moral principles’ that emanate from the one source—our Creator. (Who could know better what we limited human need to do than the very one who created/designed/developed us.)
It can be clearly observed that different cultures have different moral values. Some things are acceptable in one culture that is considered morally repugnant in another. And moral behaviour is constantly evolving.
]This is the old Cultural Relativism argument. Just our knowing that some society or person does some action has no bearing on whether that action is moral or not, on whether it is actually right or wrong. Now you’re getting in over your head into relativism. Don’t be jerked around by that fallacy.
If morality truly comes from God alone, then it would remain fixed. There would be no need for moral adjustments in societies. For example, why do we now find slavery morally offensive when 300 years ago it was acceptable?
Uh, because we are Gentiles and not Jews, and we have been unnecessarily suckered into Enlightenment thinking—which doesn’t actually work by the way, although it gets a lot of airtime.
If our morality comes from God, we would still be owning and treating slaves as the Bible describes because God evidently did not have a problem with slavery according to both the Old and New Testaments.
Slavery still exists today, in one form or another. It is bigger and more lucrative in the world than any time previous—just not in the democratic countries. We have other methods by which we ‘use’ people.
I respect that we'll probably disagree on this issue. As an atheist I see no reason to believe that my moral behavior comes from God - especially given that much of the Bible is littered with atrocities.
Again, you see the Bible littered with atrocities because you already take for granted the ideas of our present culture. The basic truth is this—don’t be a slave to sin, obey God, and you’ll most likely find yourself a free person.
I have come to respect the fact that there is no single "correct" interpretation of the Bible.
Again, that is relativism. Just because the bible may be hard to understand, or that aspects of its ancient culture may be lost to us, doesn’t mean that there isn’t specifically one (or two) meaning that the writers originally intended.
Christian history is replete with schisms and divisions on doctrines and dogma. The danger is when one person claims to know the truth and expects others to see it as they do.
Yes, human beings are limited, and Christian faith does not promise discernment for everyone. Actually, the only danger is that some fanatic things the correct application is to FORCE others to obey. Expecting others to understand is not the same thing as physical force; expecting is a normal part of life in any endeavor. When you go to your job, does your employer unfairly expect you to understand what needs to be done?
Why would be afraid of God communicating with us in a direct and obvious way? Many of the Bible's central characters took God's presence and communications for granted, and without fear. In fact, some even argued with God like an equal.
Not at Mount Sinai, Babylon, or the Island of Patmos…although Abraham seemed to get a good deal, as well as the 12 disciples.
I don't believe the Bible is evidence for God. If it is, then were does that leave the Qur'an?
In the ahistorical dust.
Is that also evidence?
Not in the same way that the Bible is.
Religious literature is evidence that people believed in a God and were trying to define him and his requirements of humanity.
Not if they were writing in reaction to things they experienced or trusted. If it is that simple, then I only BELIEVE that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
There is much in religious literature that has been disproved scientifically if read from a literal stance (i.e., modern science just does not agree with a literal reading of the first 10 or so chapters of Genesis).
Then don’t read everything from an ultra-literal stance—such as the first 10 chapters.
[I know this feels like mental boxing, but please know that I know you are a bright individual, and I have no hard feelings. I appreciate your earnestness and thinking.)
Blessings,
2PhiloVoid
