Flashback #3

I've managed to dig up an email I sent to a friend when I was still a Christian. It shows how I would have answered some of the main objections at the time, and it supports my view that, irrespective of whether it is true, Christianity (like many other religions) is coherent. I now disagree with some of what I said: I'll deal with that in a separate post.

Thanks for your questions about Christianity. Before I dive into answering them, I should probably make a few remarks. First, as I mentioned, my beliefs are not those of all Christians. There are some who would answer your questions differently, and some who have not thought about them. Second, I have reordered your questions for convenience; the answers to some of them depend on ideas raised in the answers to others. Third, I have tried to reproduce your questions as accurately as possible, but if I have oversimplified or misrepresented them then please clarify them. Fourth, the foundation for many of the answers will lie in God; that is, I believe that the focus of Christianity is God, and not Christians. Many of the questions you have asked reflect the impression (too often given by Christians) that God's ultimate motivation is to please/save/convince us. Of course, the question of God's ultimate motivation is difficult; we as creatures must expect it to be a struggle to understand the Creator. Nevertheless, He has shown enough of Himself to answer the questions you have asked. Finally, I have a habit of using words like 'good', 'sin', 'forgive' etc. to mean what the Bible means by them rather than what they mean in common usage. I have tried to point out all the places where I have done this. Without further ado:

>What does it mean to say that 'God is good'? That is, what is a sensible notion of goodness?
Here the Biblical usage is close to the original English meaning of the word good. That is, 'good' means 'In accordance with the character of God' as neatly summed up by the phrase 'what Jesus would do', at least for the actions of people. Similarly a thing is good if God is pleased by it. The definintion of goodness is the first example of something in my reply with its foundation in God. It follows that the statement 'God is good' is tautologous, at least if God is consistent within Himself.

However, as so often happens in mathematics, having defined a word in a technical way, it is worth looking to see why it corresponds closely with how you use it in natural language. First, obviously, when God has explained how He would like us to behave, he has by this definition explained the notion of goodness. Second, God has made us 'in His image'; we have some idea of good within ourselves, in our conscience. This is a weak reflection of true goodness, as defined by God, but we can often see that we 'ought to' behave in a certain way. We can see that some things (like murder, to pick an obvious example) are not good. We can also see that we ourselves are not good, even by the weak standards we can see for ourselves. But we can also be confused by many things in the world that we can see are not good, and ask why they are allowed by a good God:

>Why are there natural disasters and suffering in the world if God is both omnipotent and good?
First, from the answer to the last question, it is clear that what God does is good, even if we don't think so. However, this answer is not very satisfying, since the goodness of God does correspond somehow to our own notions and it is hard for us to see a good reason for the suffering in the world. It turns out that the answer lies in the character of God. Namely, God is just. That is, things that are not good make God angry, and God punishes people who are not good (that is, who are sinful). As I mentioned earlier, even we can see that we are not good. But often we do not realise the extent of our sin.

For example, God has created us and has given us many things that are good, such as life, food, the beauty of nature and in particular the beauty of mathematics. The good response to this is to thank God, and to devote our time and energy to Him. We do not do this. Indeed, we add insult to injury by devoting our time and energy to the things that have been created, without reference to the God who created them. We devote ourselves to mathematics without acknowledging the God who created it. Or we seek security or extended life or comfort for their own sakes, and ignore God who gives them. I mention those things that I do; you may devote yourself to other things. But all people insult God in this way.

Again, we often mistake our own notions of goodness for true goodness, and try to live by reference to them. But our own standards of goodness are considerably weaker than that of God. Take a look at Matthew chapters 5-7, for a small sample of God's standard. The Bible likens the comparison between our own standards and God's to that between the ground and the sky. So by setting up our own standards we demean goodness, and so insult God.

All this is aggravated by the fact that these sins are against God himself. Even we can see that a crime is aggravated by the greatness of the being against whom it is committed. For example, it is far worse to kill a human being than it is to kill a chicken. If you go to an art gallery and damage one of the paintings, that is worse than tearing up a photograph of the same painting, as could be seen by the response of the gallery attendants to these two actions. But we have sinned against God, whose greatness I cannot even adequately describe.

God's punishment is just and proportionate, and consists of suffering in this world, death, and eternal suffering after death. The infinity of the punishment corresponds to the infinity of the greatness of God, against whom we have sinned. To sum up; suffering in this world is punishment for the fact that we do stuff displeasing to God. This raises an obvious question:

>Why were we created able to do stuff displeasing to God?
Again the answer lies in the character of God. Take a look at Romans chapter 9 verses 19-23. This section of Romans is answering a closely related question; 'If God is in control then why does He blame us for the fact that we are sinful?' (v19), and the answer given also answers the question you have asked. First, note that the question is about the motivation of God: 'Why does God ...?'. So we should expect to have some difficulty answering it; we are vastly inferior to God and we can only get a small and limited inkling of the goodness of God's motivation (v20). Indeed, the following analogy is drawn: We make clay, which is vastly inferior to ourselves, into whatever we want without worrying about whether the clay is convinced that what we are doing is right. It would be strange if there was a protest at a pottery factory seeking 'rights for clay' because the clay was being made for a variety of purposes without consulting the clay itself (v21). Given all this, it is surprising that we are able to understand anything of God's motivation at all. But we are. God is righteous, just, and angry at sin. He is powerfully able to punish sin. He wants to express these things. But He cannot do this without there being actual sin to be justly condemned. So he made us capable of sin (v22). Note that God's ultimate motivation is not for us, but for Himself. Nor is it that He should have pleasure, but rather that He should express who He is. I shall return to verse 23 later.

>Will people in heaven have free will; that is, could they freely choose to disobey God?
Yes.
>Will they?
No.
>So what was the point of Earth: If God can create beings with free will who do not disobey him, why didn't He?
See the answer to the previous question. Heaven is different from Earth, in that in heaven God will be praised for who He is, as He has revealed Himself to be through what happened on Earth.

>What does it mean to be 'forgiven' by God?
>What was the point of Jesus dying on the cross; couldn't God have just forgiven us?
The normal sense of the word 'forgiven' is that one person, who has been wronged by another, forgets the guilt of that other. This occurs usually in a situation in which the person who did the wrong is truly sorry. God, being just, cannot forgive us in this sense. It is against His character that guilt should go unpunished when the guilty party not only isn't sorry, but continues do the same wrong. But as I have explained above, we all (including myself) are in that position. Yet God will not punish me in Hell for my sin; He has forgiven me in a different sense.

God's character contains not only absolute justice but also absolute love. This absolute love is also expressed in this world. God loved me so much that he arranged for somebody else to take my punishment. This was not a trivial matter. You could not take my punishment, because you have your own to deal with. Nor could anbody else sinful, for the same reason. But innocent things like rocks and trees also can't take my punishment; they cannot suffer as men. So an innocent man was needed. What God did was this: He Himself became a human being, lived a good life, was killed, and was punished on my behalf. This was not a result of anything good in me that caused God to love me, but was pure mercy (v23). In this God gave full expression to His love. God has mercifully allowed me to rely on this and this alone for my righteousness (as judged by God), and to come to a relationship with him by these means.

>If God wants a relationship with me, why hasn't He made Himself more obvious to me?
Well, firstly, as mentioned a few of questions ago, God's ultimate desire isn't for you to have a relationship with Him. If it was, you would have a relationship with Him. However, I guess this doesn't really get at the idea underlying your question, which I shall now try explore. There certainly is a sense in which God wants you to have a relationship with Him; He loves you and it would please Him to have such a relationship. Therefore it would be good for you to have a relationship with Him. But how can you be expected to when He hasn't made Himself more obvious? Wouldn't it be a good idea for Him to convince you by showing up in your room and doing a few miracles?

Be warned; you may find the answer to this question offensive. Take a look at what Jesus said in Luke chapter 16 verses 19-31. Two men die; one (Lazarus) goes to heaven and the other to hell. The one in hell asks for Lazarus to come and alleviate his suffering, but it is explained that this is impossible. So he says 'I've got 5 brothers; send Lazarus to warn them'. The idea being that, if they had the greater evidence of Lazarus rising from the dead and warning them, then they would repent. The response is that this is simply not true. If they have not been convinced by 'The law and the prophets' then they won't be convinced even if they do see such a miracle.

'The law and the prophets' refers to the Bible, in particular the old testament. This clearly explains the character of God and His relation to us. Furthermore, it gives evidence that it is the word of God. The different books were written by different people in different places and cultures, but they all agree with one another and with the state of the world and have the same ultimate purpose; to give glory to God. They clearly explain the human condition in a way that resonates with the heart, though at the same time it offends. They contain many prophecies. Some of these prophecies were claims about what would happen in the future but before the end of the world. These prophecies have all come true, and not in such a way as to have been planned. Read any of the gospels, and you will see frequent references to predictions in the old testament of the events that occurred. For example, a description of the suffering of crucifiction was given before it had been invented.

You are in a strongly priveleged position with respect to those 5 brothers. You also have the new testament, of which the same things can be said. That new testament, and other historical documents of the time, provide convincing historical evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, who was God as well as a Man. The claim of the story I mentioned is that the evidence you have is more than convincing, but that it is your sin that prevents you being convinced; and even more shockingly that your claim that if God were to appear to you and do a miracle then you would believe is false; that your sin would lead you to explain away even this. Worse, your sin might lead you to worship the miracle and ignore the God who performed it.

>Can we trust the Bible, given that it makes such strong claims (for example, that miracles took place)?
I am afraid I cannot give a complete answer to this question here, as the amount of evidence available is so great. I reccomend that you have a look at the Bible itself, and check some of the things I mentioned earlier. I also recommend that you come to the talk at 1:10pm on Monday 12th at the guildhall, titled 'Can I trust the Bible?', which will explain some of the key evidence. I shall take a little space here to argue for the truth of just 1 key miracle; the resurrection.

Evidence for this is to be found in documents of the new testament. We have manuscripts of these documents, some of which were written by eyewitnesses, going back to within a generation of the originals. It is possible to argue the truth of the resurrection from the internal textual evidence of these documents, but I do not have space to do so here, nor am I an expert in textual criticism. The other historians of the time mention the crucifiction, and they also document the spread of Christianity. The early witnesses claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead. At the time they could have easily been proved wrong by simply producing Jesus' body: Nobody did so, though the Jewish establishment had strong reasons to. They claimed that the body had been stolen, by those same witnesses. But the witnesses clearly believed what they were saying; they were prepared to die in painful ways rather than to deny it. This would not have been worth it if they had made it up. Nor were there just a few witnesses. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Here Paul makes a big claim; that huge numbers of people saw Jesus after his resurrection, and that they were still around; that you could check by going to ask them. Again, he could have been easily discredited if he was wrong, unless large numbers of people were so convinced of a lie that they were prepared to die for it.

The available evidence was strong enough to convince me. But you should look at it for yourself. You mentioned Hume's argument that, since miracles are so improbable, you should believe almost any alternative (such as, they were all strongly motivated liars). I need to look up the argument again to check I have it right, but it seems to implicitly assume that miracles are very highly improbable; in particular, that they do not have divine cause. So it assumes the conclusion.

I apologise for any poor explanations I have given (with hindsight, I should have gone and slept for a bit and finished this in the morning).