Responding to an atheist: "5 Tough Questions for Christians"

[Dizerner]

My answers:

01:07 Question #1: Is God the sole creator of EVERYTHING in the universe?

*Answer to 1:* Yes. This is just a formulation of the Problem of Evil. The objective is to try to demonstrate that logically God cannot be maximally loving. However, it was never the claim that the deity is only love, this is a wrong understanding of the Christian formulation. Since God is composed of many attributes, and not just love, we simply have to show that logically love is compatible with suffering and evil. Now love here should be defined as the sincere desire of God for all his creation to experience well-being, not just an absence of suffering, but moral virtue as well. We do not want to picture love as promoting well-being to evil character, as that would be a permissive enabling. So, because God has other attributes that include his own moral worth, he may have sufficient moral justification to override his desire for the well-being of all by a more important reason—that is, he may allow things he loves to suffer for the sake of his own worth and glory.

05:18 Question #2: Why did Jesus Have to Die?

"Answer to 2:* Because the definition of sin for the Christian theist, is a fundamental violation of God's worth, and because the original delegates who held the key to the destiny of those who followed, were entrusted with the power to either obey and glorify God, or disobey in rebellion and receive the just attribution of the evil of devaluing God through the judgment of all physical creation with the punishment of corruption and sin, it was necessary for God, were he to ever be able to redeem these fallen creations and forgive them while maintaining that he still has the ultimate and supreme infinite valuation, to maintain his own value with an appropriate expression of just how evil that evil really is, and as the source and reason for all moral justice being alone worthy of the role of absolute authority, he can maintain his own proper glory and worth by becoming in union with his creation and offering to suffer that penalty that must be paid for them.

06:39 Question #3: Why Don’t You Hold God to His Own Moral Standards?

*Answer to 3:* Well, this is stated imprecisely but I think I understand your idea so let me steel man it. Humans of course do not want God to "uphold his own moral standard," what they desire is that there be a higher standard than God or humans, and that both be made accountable to it. This is a very important point, because God's standard is not based on putting the value of creation over himself, that is not what his sacrifice means at all, that would be what the Bible calls "idolatry." But since God only has infinite substance, created all things, and upholds all things, he has a unique entitlement to importance that no creation can ever have. God's commands to his creatures are not based on a standard that puts creation over himself, this never was the case at all. We do not murder, for example, because God doesn't want murder, not because the person we murder is the determiner of value. This is why the rejection of God's morality always logically results in the complete exaltation of one's self to the place of God, as determiner of all right and wrong. As an aside, the Mosaic Law allowed for things that were sinful and still would be judged, it was not meant to represent perfect moral purity.

08:35 Question #4: Why Does God Need You to Do His Bidding?

*Answer to 4:* The reason is because glorifying God is fitting and appropriate since he alone holds all worth.

09:42 Question #5 Why did God give the Earth over to Satan?

*Answer to 5:* Okay, two part answer. The first part is because free will is an added opportunity to glorify God, and this is the purpose of free will, along with the ability to love genuinely as a secondary reason. Thus the purpose for the creation of free will is the opportunity to glorify God, which is always fitting. The typical objections here, that this makes God prideful and not following his own standard, are both logical errors in this case. God does not command humility to his creation because humility is unconditionally always appropriate, but because humility is acknowledging the reality of one's place. Since God possesses all powers and virtues, it is therefore not immoral for God to correspondingly possess all pride as well, since he has the substance to back it up. The second part is, that when the free will is refused, when it is no longer used to glorify God, it must be subjected to judgment as an appropriate response. And the reason the suffering from the fall is so great, involving billions of animals and humans, is because it is necessary to expess how evil a thing it is to rebel against a God who has infinite worth. That infinite worth must be expressed in either blessing or judgment corresponding to how the free will is used.

*Ending:* You will not like these answers. They are logically sound and do not violate any core principles of reason, but no sinner will ever like the answers themselves. The reason is, as we were turned over to a sinful nature in judgment, none of us naturally places any substantial value on God. We want God to be "one of the boys," just like us, standing in line, following the same rules we do. We want to implement our own value in the place of God's and take his place, virtually attempting to enthrone ourselves as the ultimate value and arbiter of all right and wrong, and have our infinite creator be subject to our own punsishment and chastisement.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hi @Dizerner

Thanks for your thoughtful article.
I find a fundamental question here: Is the God we worship a good God or an evil God?
If God is good, then we must obey Him. If He is evil, then we must reject it.

To determine whether the God we worship is good, we must have a standard... and as humans, we have no other standard that the sense of morality God has embedded in us.
We could not say that the Bible or the Quran or any other sacred book is the standard, because then we would have to reject any supposedly sacred text that presented God as evil.

Fortunately, the Bible presents the morality of God as being qualitatively understandable, but infinite in quantity.
What I mean is this:
If the Bible presents God as merciful, just, and loving, it is because we can understand, as readers, what "merciful", "just" and "loving" means. Otherwise, revelation would be pointless, as God's attributes would be ininteligible.
So, using reason, we can deduce that if God wants to reveal Himself with moral attributes A, B and C, those attributes mean something for us, resonate with us.

The three main sources of biblical support, in my view, are these:

1. Man was created in the image of God. If God does not have a body, and intellectually it is impossible to even be compared with Him, then the image should be, mainly, spiritual.
2. In the gospels, Jesus takes human examples to explain the moral attributes of His Father and viceversa.
3. Jesus asks us to be perfect as His Father.

In summary, when we study the love, mercy and justice of God, it is perfectly valid to take as reference our HUMAN concept of love, mercy and justice. because

1) Its origin is divine
2) Attributes revealed to men imply that we can understand them, at least to the extent that is needed for our salvation.

 

[Dizerner]

I find a fundamental question here: Is the God we worship a good God or an evil God?
If God is good, then we must obey Him. If He is evil, then we must reject it.

However, you have used the terms good and evil here without fundamentally defining them. You see logically, for any standard of morality at all, there must be some one thing that dictates it, that tells us exactly what each should be. If there is no determiner, nothing setting the standards, no law-giver as it were, then there can be no good or evil at all, anything goes, nothing is good, nothing is evil, things just exist, they just "are." But we know in our conscience that there should be some things that really are evil or really are good, as confused as we may be about what that should be or why. And there cannot be two ultimate standards because if they disagree then there would be no consensus, no way to determine which one was correct.

So to determine what should be the law giver, what should be the arbiter of morality, we must consider the actual logical backing a thing has for such a claim. If I just go by my feelings, whatever unexamined motive and value happens to flit through me at the moment, I am essentially putting myself in that place as the law-giver. And we know people change opinions like they change clothes, what I think is evil today I might say is good tomorrow if I change my mind. But only one being has the credentials, the logical backing. to claim that authority and importance, and that is God, and for three primary reasons: he has infinite substance, he created all things, and he upholds all things. No other being in all creation has those credentials, none.

But If I make myself the law giver, or any arbitrary thing I might choose to idolize, as I was saying, I have essentially claimed a role that I do not have the legitimate authority and importance for. I have logically and in effect enthroned myself as god in the place of the actual God, yet without his credentials. I must realize I have moved the center of authority and worth off of God to a higher "god" that God is then subjected to. Basically, I've just replaced God with a different god of my own choosing and making. I have put a god above God that then the actual God in my opinion must be subjected to, and submit himself to be judged by this arbitrary standard I have installed—and in the end, what that logically equates to, is a rejection, a devaluation upon, and a rebellion against the legitimate God.

By making my own petty preferences the definition of good and evil, I have declared God my enemy that must be conquered and destroyed, and set myself up in rebellion against him, making a claim I have infinite worth that all other things must be subjected to. And I must notify anyone doing that, as justified as they may feel enthroning themselves, they will not win that battle—they cannot prevail against the God that made them.

To determine whether the God we worship is good, we must have a standard... and as humans, we have no other standard that the sense of morality God has embedded in us.

We have free will to reject and accept God as he presents himself to us.

We cannot blame our decision to rebel against God as something God himself embedded in us, when God granted us real choice by his grace.

If the Bible presents God as merciful, just, and loving, it is because we can understand, as readers, what "merciful", "just" and "loving" means. Otherwise, revelation would be pointless, as God's attributes would be ininteligible.
So, using reason, we can deduce that if God wants to reveal Himself with moral attributes A, B and C, those attributes mean something for us, resonate with us.

On the contrary, the Bible actually says the opposite of what you claim. Instead of granting man the authority to call God evil, the Bible grants God the authority to call all men evil.

The Bible says that man does not naturally like or accept the authority and preeminence of God, but that we are all born children of God's wrath under condemnation, we are sinful from the womb, all have turned astray, no one is good, not even one. It says as high as the heavens are above the earth, so high is God's understanding above ours—it says the natural mind does not receive the things of God's Spirit because they are foolishness to him—it says the Gospel of Christ is foolishness to those are perishing, that some seek miracles and some seek wisdom, but God preaches a message foolish to our natural mind.

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1:18-25 NKJ)

...who were dead in trespasses and sins,
2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
(Eph. 2:1-3 NKJ)

1. Man was created in the image of God. If God does not have a body, and intellectually it is impossible to even be compared with Him, then the image should be, mainly, spiritual.

If you want to claim the Bible as an authority, you should really know there's more to the story.

Mankind rebelled after that, mankind fell, Genesis 3 follows Genesis 2.

We are marred images.

2. In the gospels, Jesus takes human examples to explain the moral attributes of His Father and viceversa.

Jesus explains that his Father is greater than all, and no one anyone is like him, that no man has ascended and seen God, and that his Father should be feared far more than what any man could do.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt. 10:28 NKJ)

2. Jesus asks us to be perfect as His Father.

Yes, he does! And he asks us to rip our eyes out if we ever lust, and cut our hand off if we ever steal, because otherwise we will be thrown into hellfire.

Jesus in the same sermon calls us evil.

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children (Matt. 7:11 NKJ)

The truth is we all fall short of Jesus' standards in this sermon, none of us are perfect, and thus all deserve that hell he told us of.

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old,`You shall not commit adultery.'
28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. (Matt. 5:27-29 NKJ)

Jesus promises us that sinners will not be released until they have paid the very last penny of retributive justice to our Judge:

25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. (Matt. 5:25-26 NKJ)

And he tells us what the price of rebelling against him is:

27 `But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'" (Lk. 19:27 NKJ)

In summary, when we study the love, mercy and justice of God, it is perfectly valid to take as reference our HUMAN concept of love, mercy and justice. because

1) Its origin is divine
2) Attributes revealed to men imply that we can understand them, at least to the extent that is needed for our salvation.

In summary then, what you have stated here amounts to high treason against God Almighty deserving of his wrath, setting up idols before his face as an insult and slander to him, rebelling and hating and rejecting him for who he is, and making God your worst enemy.

Not a great choice, it is time to bow before the King instead of enthrone ourselves in insurrection.

 

[Dizerner]

Thanks for your thoughtful article.

You're welcome, I hope this video can also bless you.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In summary then, what you have stated here amounts to high treason against God Almighty deserving of his wrath, setting up idols before his face as an insult and slander to him, rebelling and hating and rejecting him for who he is, and making God your worst enemy.

I don't know what you're talking about, my friend. Probably you misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself correctly.
So here I go

What I say is that the moral attributes of God must mean something for us, that resonates with our heart and reason, because if they could mean anything, even the opposite thing, then revelation would be ininteligible.... and therefore, pointless.

The meaning of "merciful", "just", "loving", etc, although explained with more detail in the Bible (eg through examples, illustrations, or application in real life and historical circumstances) is something that biblical authors take for granted as already existent in the reader, beforehand.

When they need some explanation, Jesus uses examples of our daily, human life. In such examples, it becomes clear that God's morality is infinitely higher than men in magnitude. Jesus does not present God as having an attribute contrary of what we understand.


Let's examine this example:

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! (Matthew 7:7-11)

In this example, the virtue of giving god things to our children is the same virtue that the Heavenly Father has in giving thins to his children. That's precisely why Jesus chose the example. Of course, there is an infinite difference between our virtue and God's virtue... but it is a difference in quantity, not in meaning!

Take this other example:

Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. (Mathew 18:21,22)

The divine standard of those who live in Christ is much higher than those who don't. But please notice it is not a difference in meaning. It is a difference in magnitude. Peter is not asking the meaning of "forgive" and Jesus takes for granted Peter knows what the term means... At least, Peter knows it well enough as for Jesus to explain that he should forgive much more.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You're welcome, I hope this video can also bless you.

Thank you for the video.
I sympathize with both the preacher and the girl.
The big problem with the preacher here, though, is that he is not giving the girl a good reason to be rescued or saved.
The only good reason for somebody to convert is to be rescued from our current hell: the hell of our spiritual slavery, which can take millions of forms according to the particular situation of each person.

Current hell is what drives people (at least thinking, spiritually sensitive people) to ask God for his grace. Not a doctrine of a future torment.
If a doctrine of a future torment becomes our real rationale for conversion, we are not honoring religion, but superstition.

The preacher did not take a time to investigate what was the hell that girl was living in. Was it drugs? Was it hate from and towards his parents? Was it to be slave of popularity in social media? Was the preacher interested in knowing what it was?

Eternal life is a gift from God that is needed, offered, and enjoyed NOW, on this earth (and of course continue beyond our physical death).
So, why does the preacher seem to ignore what are the current spiritual needs and opportunities of that girl?
Why is he concentrated in the intangible afterlife? The girl already believes in reincarnation... isn't that true? So, how the preacher thinks that she will change her attitude based on beliefs based on the afterlife?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So to determine what should be the law giver, what should be the arbiter of morality, we must consider the actual logical backing a thing has for such a claim. If I just go by my feelings, whatever unexamined motive and value happens to flit through me at the moment, I am essentially putting myself in that place as the law-giver.

But the Law-Giver already relies in your inner sense of good and evil... gift that He has endowed you with.

For example, when the Law-Giver commands "Honor your father and your mother", He does not need to explain in detail what this means.
According to your culture, you should do things that bring joy, pride, respect to your parents, always in compliance with the big principles underpinning the rest of the commandments.

So, a basic intuitive and rational universal ethics does NOT place the creature upon God, since we are honoring God when we use basic reasoning and spiritual discernment. Is such reasoning and discernment fallible? Yes, inasmuch as it is LIMITED.
But the fact that they are limited does not mean they are invalid or useless.

If our spiritual discernment had no value to tell good from evil, God would have given Adam a collection of millions of norms... and that would not have been enough, because the number of circumstances requiring a wise application of those norms is enourmous.
God would have given Adam a software underpinned by a highly complex artificial intelligence.

So, within the limits of our reason and spiritual discernment, we can be pretty confident that the Chinese Confucianist will understand the commandment "Honor your parents" as the American Evangelical understands it, and both of them will be held responsible to honor their parents.

Beyond those limits, differences will appear between the Chinese atheist and American.. but gray areas will always be there. That's why there is so much debate within all religious faiths in topics like masturbation, euthanasia, contraceptive use, use of animals as food machines, videogames, artificial intelligence, our responsibility in climate change, ecumenism, etc.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus explains that his Father is greater than all, and no one anyone is like him, that no man has ascended and seen God, and that his Father should be feared far more than what any man could do.

Sure God morality is greater than all... as it is fueled, in addition, by his All-Knowing attribute and his Eternity.
But as I say, God morality is infinitely different than man's morality in magnitude, not in meaning.

You are merciful. Well, God is trillions of times more merciful. But "merciful" means the same when you talk about yourself than when you talk about God. Otherwise, we couldn't even state "God is more merciful than you" because... what "merciful" would mean in the first place?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

We have free will to reject and accept God as he presents himself to us.

I fully agree. Now, let me add two reflections

1. God presents to us in many ways, not only through the Bible. In history, the Bible appears hundreds of thousands of years AFTER the appearance of free will in our species. As per your personal biography, the Bible appeared in your life AFTER you had a basic understanding of good and bad from your parents... and the Bible for sure did not replace your reason and spiritual discernment. Did it?
2. If a god presents to us as an evil guy, we should exercise our free will to reject him/her. That's why I have said to @jeremiah1five, who holds that salvation is only for those of Hebrew genetic lineage.

I am convinced that God, the Bible and the Gospel do not condemn to eternal torture people who do not have a Hebrew genetic lineage. I have presented biblical evidence of that to him.
However... if he were totally convinced that God, the Bible and the Gospel condemn them, his duty would be to reject such god, such textbook and such message... because it would be evil, genocidal.

Although many in this Forum have presented biblical-based arguments against the twisted doctrine or brother @jeremiah1five, I believe to be the only one in this Forum to present ethical arguments. Why is that?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus in the same sermon calls us evil.

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children (Matt. 7:11 NKJ)

This supports my point.
Jesus is saying that even within our fallen condition, we know deep inside what is good and bad. We know that giving bread to our child is good while giving him a venomous snake is bad. So nobody has excuse in the Day of Judgement.

Nobody needs to read the Ten Commandments to understand that sending Jews to the gas chamber is evil and rescuing them is good.
So, a Nazi leader raised as an atheist won't be able to justify his actions before God saying: "Oh! I hadn't read the Ten Commandments, you know... so I couldn't tell good for bad".

In regard to complex decisions that may go beyond our basic reasoning and spiritual discernment (eg. a Roman soldier following orders from a superior, in a context in which most crucified criminals are considered really guilty of their crimes ), Jesus intercedes for us before the Father, as He did on the cross for them.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Not a great choice, it is time to bow before the King instead of enthrone ourselves in insurrection.

Let me state it once more:
Using reason and spiritual discernment learned from our parents, guided by the Holy Spirit, is NOT insurrection, because they come from God.
And the best proof of that is that the Bible itself was written for readers who held in common these notions, before having read a single page of the Bible.

I can say the opposite:
Making the text of the Bible our standard without resorting to reason and meditation is INSURRECTION against the Creator who gave us those gifts to be used. It is idolatry.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

On the contrary, the Bible actually says the opposite of what you claim. Instead of granting man the authority to call God evil, the Bible grants God the authority to call all men evil.

No, sir.
The Bible does not says the opposite of what I claim.
The very fact that God calls men "wicked" or "righteous" (don't forget that the Bible many times call men "righteous"), presupposes that we understand that being wicked is bad and being righteous is good. God didn't invent new terms. He used our own terms. God is not a moral alien.

The Bible, in short, is an instrument of the Word of God because it speaks our moral language.

If you find a textbook or a religion that does not speak your basic moral language, reject that book and religion!

 

[Dizerner]

If you find a textbook or a religion that does not speak your basic moral language, reject that book and religion!

Self-enthronement and assuming you are self-righteous.

The Bible does give God authority.

every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19 NKJ)

I rebuke your lies and slander and call you to repentance before it is too late.

Christ is King.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Self-enthronement and assuming you are self-righteous.

I firmly reject that accusation.
Using reason, science, spiritual discernment and the advice from my mom is honoring God, glorifying God, and humbling myself before God.
Using the Bible as the only and supreme standard of good and evil is superstition in the best scenario... idolatry in the worst.

he Bible does give God authority.

The Bible can't give God authority. It should be the other way around, right?

 

[Dizerner]

I firmly reject that accusation.
Using reason, science, spiritual discernment and the advice from my mom is honoring God, glorifying God, and humbling myself before God.
Using the Bible as the only and supreme standard of good and evil is superstition in the best scenario... idolatry in the worst.

The Bible can't give God authority. It should be the other way around, right?

It's a metaphorical give, as in "attributes authority to." We must not be pedantic here.

Now as a final warning, I must tell you every time you exalt your own mind and idolatrous self-righteousness in resisting the Gospel, you are hardening your heart over and over.

There will come a day the Holy Spirit will simply stop striving with you.

Please don't go to hell just for the sake of your own pride, it's not worth it.

The glories of my Great God whom I have experienced and know more personally than any demon are beyond telling.

Godspeed.

fin.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It's a metaphorical give, as in "attributes authority to." We must not be pedantic here.

Now as a final warning, I must tell you every time you exalt your own mind and idolatrous self-righteousness in resisting the Gospel, you are hardening your heart over and over.

There will come a day the Holy Spirit will simply stop striving with you.

Please don't go to hell just for the sake of your own pride, it's not worth it.

The glories of my Great God whom I have experienced and know more personally than any demon are beyond telling.

Godspeed.

fin.

You are going to heaven. It is evident to me that You have submitted your will to God and God will never let you down.

You are already enjoying the glories of your Great God and will enjoy them more and more as He reveals progressively to you and you learn to love Him back.

I don’t ask you to repent from anything you believe, because we all believe in nonsense one way or the other, and in the vast majority of cases that’s an intellectual mistake, not a sin. God still love us despite our limited minds.

I don’t ask you to repent, because to do so I would need to know your life first and find evidences of hatred or lust or indifference or greed.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit will stop some day striving with you. First because you want to be transformed by the Spirit and second, and most importantly, because God wants to transform you.

You are my brother… another rose of the same garden, another leave from the same tree, another wave of the same sea (I’m quoting Bahá’u’lláh). I love you and honor you for what you are now, and not only for what you can become.