Probably a good thing I wasn’t at this…I would have had a hard time sitting still.

I believe this senseable Universe IS wholly physics, that DOES NOT mean I don’t believe I do not exist. I think it DOES mean the door needs to be held open for re-definition. That meaning existence itself or the rules of physics at this point in time have no hard and fast set. We have OUR knowledge at PRESENT but as we understand the world around us more as time moves on those concepts will change (ie.with the introduction of the LHC and the subsequent knowledge that will bring)etc. So when an assertion is made that Dawkins would probably argue he does not exist. I think you need to gather a better context as to what he means by that…and of course I know all good “thinking” Christians will do the HARD WORK of sitting down as best they can to try and figure out what and why Mr. Dawkins says what he says or believes what he believes.

Although…it always strikes me as funny that WE Christians seem to think that we know ourselves (you CANNOT go midway here. Knowing yourself means 100% in every fraction of time-that you have a God-like mastery of what you would do CORRECTLY every fraction of a second of time.). To me as a Christians I would think that if I knew myself that would mean I have full and complete control over all my actions and would have no need for a God…as a Christian I would NEVER sin. “I know in this situation the right thing to do here is such-and-such. Well then that’s it! I won’t do it and thereby avoid sin!” Rediculas…Of course, all us good Christians understand there is only one that can be at that place.
As a Christian, I would be the first to tell you I sin all the time. Not proud of it…well am VERY proud of the humanity GOD gave me but in that I sin therefore I do not know myself and thereby need God.

As to Dawkin’s quote of “lively language”, I think it’s funny that it’s noted that this a departure of his from scientific cool and collected use of speech, I mean after all…do you think he DREAMS in this language? Good grief!! or Maybe you are just saying he is human…? bcause there I am fairly sure he would agree with you.

In addition to that I do not see that as necessarily heated language though I do not know Dawkins personally and haven’t read but a older book by him so I couldn’t say for sure…has anyone asked him?

Let’s look at it then, Exodus 14:26-28 has the host of Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea BY GOD”S COMMAND. In this day and age if someone does that they are considered a murderer, why does God somehow get to ditch the responsibility for that. And by that, I mean the slaughter…really, of innocent men. Who will now leave behind families, some families who will now die because there is no longer a male in the household able to provide for them.
God IS arbitrary, murderous,and careless here. That is what I would call anyone in this world here if they did something comparable.He gets no pardon, he DID it!

I think modern Christianity’s big issue and I think these atheist authors are telling you if you would listen is that Christians don’t live up to their own standard and when challenged they say some Rediculas thing like, “I didn’t say I was perfect, just forgiven.” as if that somehow excuses your actions. They want consistency, they want you to say, “I sin.” except they don’t want you to say that, they want it rephrased to something more along the lines of, “Yer right, I am human.”
“I do fear, thus I choose a God.”

“I do have a problem controlling my temper and that makes me violent and therefore I am scared and because of that I trust that God will heal me.”

Or whatever it maybe.It’s flat-out offensive to hear someone equate themselves to an all knowing, omniscient God. Because when you claim God with air-tight security that IS what you are saying to an atheist. It is fundamentally arrogant and fundamentally diametrically opposite of what a Christian believes (namely they believe in humility not the pride of I am correct)

I think you may get allot more currency when you use language along those lines.

P.S. Based on my reading of Bonhoffer’s-Letters alone I would agree with the idea that he can be read as a Humanist. I can actually see someone reading that work at least in that way.

hey Constantine

I am not quite sure what to make of your lengthy comment as a whole or your itchy inability to sit still.

I thought I would pick up on one issue; Bonhoeffer as humanist. I think it is untenable to assert in a tidy reductionism that Bonhoeffer can be labeled a humanist. The one who wrote the Cost of Discipleship and who in Christology affirmed ” Christ as the Center of human existence” really has to be understood as a devoted Christ follower or a Christocentric humanist but not merely “Humanist.”

Constantine,

I have a hard time understanding where you derive the idea that a person cannot partially know him or herself.

If you cannot partially know yourself (or go halfway, as you put it), you are dealing in absolutes.

If you deal in abslutes, you can only know 100% of yourself or 0% of yourself.

If you claim that we cannot know 100%, we default to knowing nothing of ourselves.

Clearly, this is not the case. We all know something of ourselves.

Moreover, I cannot understand how knowing yourself on a deep and profound level would negate our need for God. God calls us to develop a meaningful, true, and complete understanding of ourselves because we are made in His image with a specific purpose. Self discover can and does bring us closer to God. This is an incremental, sometimes faltering, and imperfect process; however, I believe God allows us to understand a certain fullness of ourselves at particular phases in life.

That’s my two cents…

I would, however, completely disagree with your assertion that God is arbitrary. God is not arbitrary. You claim that having complete self knowledge puts one on par with God. You also claim that being on par with God means you know the exact right action to perform in every situation (and would actually follow through and do so). You therefore infer that God knows the exact right thing to do in every situation and actually does so; thus, logic dictates that God cannot be arbitrary.

Characterizing God as arbitrary is both flippant and unwise. It would suggest that we – in our limited human understanding of history (as it has unfolded, continues to unfold now, and will come to fruition in the future) – can claim to know more about God’s ways and purposes that God does. That is a truly arrogant idea; arrogance is, as you reminded us, not a Christian value.

Who are we to question God’s actions? God is the only constant between yesterday, today, and eternity; He’s the beginning and end of all things. His understanding of all things is infinitely greater than ours. To even compare God’s actions to ours is like comparing a 3-dimensional object to something drawn on a 2-dimensional plane; it would be a horrific simplification of something far greater, far too vast to be represented in fullness on a sheet of paper.

You accuse others of elevating humanity to God’s level. I would say you run the risk of simplifying God to a comfortable parallel with humanity.

Hello Bill and Naomi,

I had thought no one was going to respond so I forgot about this. Ha!

Bill-I agree that The Great B would certainly fall within those two meta categories but my point is I can seen his work-Letters Written from Prison, as humanist. In fact I came from a very strict conservative Christian background and that book (alongside several others at right around the same time) wrenched that viewpoint away and replaced it with a much more human Christianity.

Naomi- Umm My apologies here I guess I precipitated a long reply by posting a long post lol, so i am going to be selective in my response because it would take FOREVER to cover all the ground between our points in the conversation.

You state, “Moreover, I cannot understand how knowing yourself on a deep and profound level would negate our need for God. God calls us to develop a meaningful, true, and complete understanding of ourselves because we are made in His image with a specific purpose. Self discover can and does bring us closer to God. This is an incremental, sometimes faltering, and imperfect process; however, I believe God allows us to understand a certain fullness of ourselves at particular phases in life.”

My first impression is that you have some Christian ghetto speak going on here. Almost everything past the first sentence (makes sense to me because I am familiar with the background you are coming from)but if I wasn’t would make no sense at all. An Atheist would only get angry because he would consider you to be talking down to him/her from your high spirituality and self-centerdness. (You and I both know that’s not the truth.) But my point here is that in dialogue with them it’s OUR (as Christians) responsibility to talk to them where they can understand it. Ya gotta at least try to communicate.

I disagree with your first sentence though. If we know ourselves fully we would know to not sin. If we fully knew ourselves we would BE God and have no need for some other God.

I would, however, completely disagree with your assertion that God is arbitrary. God is not arbitrary.*I am quoting a text that supports my assertion YOU are making a statement here with no textual support.* (Let me just say here and now that I realise there IS Biblical support for your claim but you can’t just…claim it er…I guess in the name of God, to “Make it so Jim!” That doesn’t fly with Athiests.

You claim that having complete self knowledge puts one on par with God. *How is this relevant to the arbitrary characteristics of God..?*

You also claim that being on par with God means you know the exact right action to perform in every situation (and would actually follow through and do so). *Again not seeing the relevance to the characteristics of arbitrariness of God.*

You therefore infer that God knows the exact right thing *I DO ASSERT THIS.* to do in every situation and actually does so;*AGAIN YES I DO* thus, logic dictates that God cannot be arbitrary.*THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY BY NECESSITY*

My point was God yes!, may not be arbitrary, may actually do the exact right thing at the exact right time and follow through with it, but to anyone else murder is STILL murder and to pick one peoples out of all peoples and pin the Doctrine of Rightness on them is arbitrary…to ALL others (specifically because THEY ARE NOT GOD).*

Who are we to question God’s actions? *We are God’s greatest creation is EXACTLY who we are to question God’s actions! God ABSOLUTELY LOVES the fact that we CHOOSE him and with the ABILITY TO CHOOSE COMES THE FREEDOM TO QUESTION!!!*

I would say you run the risk of simplifying God to a comfortable parallel with humanity.*Actually I would say most Christians have done EXACTLY this. We have become so wrapped up in a cell phone God where we know that all we have to do is cough out a prayer for whatever, doesn’t even have to be self motivating it’s just that we expect God to work just like the cell phone we tote around with us. With exact same expectation that we want, in the exact same time frame we want with the correct and proper people involved that the “Bible would predict” (Heaven forbid God use a prostitute to square my life away.) Yet God does NOT fall into ANY category you would shoehorn him into except I am not sure he would forcibly change your viewpoints…you are HUMAN! be critical! I am sure your faith can handle it.*