Atheist morality?

[crowonsnow]

So one of them has a barrier and the other one doesnt. This might help us understand why opening the flood gates to secularism in the 20th century led to the bloodiest century.

The nations that slaughtered and bludgeoned each other in WWI were neither atheist nor communist. These were Christians killing Christians, and all the wars on the European continent that preceded it were the same. It is a myth believed only by Christian supremacists that Christianity or any theism is peaceful. There is more than abundant evidence that proves this.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Relative to the culture.

They are not.

No obligation at all. However, if the others are in a position of power then they may chose to take steps to enforce the obligations.

Yep. That is why we need to be on guard against such people.

Unless the people with the power feel that God is telling them to kill. It doesn’t really matter if God has actually told them or not, it’s just a question of whether they believe it.

Your quite the honest atheist. Nice to meet one for a change. =)
Most atheist think they can have their cake and eat it to.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

The nations that slaughtered and bludgeoned each other in WWI were neither atheist nor communist. These were Christians killing Christians, and all the wars on the European continent that preceded it were the same. It is a myth believed only by Christian supremacists that Christianity or any theism is peaceful. There is more than abundant evidence that proves this.

I never said Christians are not capable of war and evil. I only said that Christians who do act in these ways act in a contrary way to their faith. However, in some respects they act in accord with the faith. What I mean is the doctrine that man is a sinner. So for a Christian to go out and murder an individual is fully accountable from a Christian world view that teacher man as a sinner in need of a savior. That is the entire point of Jesus salvation from the punishment we deserve to rightly pay for (i.e. hate, violence, muder, pride).

It is true that Christianity teaches a set of moral laws that we should follow as a means to be “better people.” But Christ did not come for the primary purpose of making bad people good, he came to make dead people live. He did not say… “only the righteous qualify for this club. So if your a sinner you need not apply.” He said the complete opposite.

**Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” **

And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I think one thing we can agree on is that the historical and experiential evidence, if it suggests anything, suggest that man is full of sin.

It has been often the case that people rushed to an unjust war and carried the banner of the cross. That possibility is there since many people feel justified when they think that God approves their actions. But just keep in mind that the cross is also the same thing that prevents many people from going out to fight in an unjust, sometimes evil, war.

However, by what symbol does an atheist stop himself from murdering people?
Look at Stalin who was in seminary and made a change in his religious commitment. He decided he could no longer believe in God and obliterated millions of his own people. It was the logical outworking of his own belief that man was whatever you defined him to be, there was no objective moral value. In atheism there is the possibility to logically connect an atheist outward actions with his inward belief system.

As victor Frankl told an audience, “It was not only a handful of ministries in Berlin that invented the gas chambers of Maidanek, Auschwitz, Treblinka, they were prepared in the offices and classrooms of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

 

[crowonsnow]

I never said Christians are not capable of war and evil. I only said that Christians who do act in these ways act in a contrary way to their faith.

That’s why labels are meaningless.

 

[TheAtheist]

Ultimately, I personally believe (mostly because I have seen no evidence to the contrary) that atheism inevitably leads to the belief that the notions of right and wrong become relative standards. As such one can easily develop the notion that the ends justify the means. Thus some, though not all, atheists can develop the notion that it is ok to kill thousands or millions of people in an effort to achieve a particular end.

Yep. That is why we need to be on guard against such people.

Is this essentially the core of the issue right here?

Values Shift over time. And i’m not talking necessarily about absolute standards here, i’m talking about the practical issues of watching a society develop throughout history.

That’s the reason why the whole “Let’s Count the Deathtoll caused by Religion/Atheism” is well…stupid.

Putting the problem of population sampling aside, it doesn’t take a genius to see that killing somebody who happens to disagree with you wasn’t all uncommon. In fact, throughout history it usually tends to be THE common approach to solving matters.

Example: If i’m a poor farmer living in 16th century Japan and i accidentally insult a samurai - i’m pretty much dead. And frankly, no one’s going to question why i died, because for that time period i did something ridiculously stupid.

To say that “Atheism” or “Christianity” causes destruction and death completely whitewashes a lot of underlying issues such as Interpretation of doctrine, Political and Social Norms, Economic issues, et al.

Taking your church as an example - is it really a wonder to know that the most progressive Popes in the Medieval phase were scholarly monastics?

And the most Aggressive and Warlike came from Aristocratic families?

If you want to take an atheist example, many of the originators of the French Revolution were scientists who were either Deists or atheists. They honestly did believe in the whole Liberty/Egalitarianism/Fraternity motto - until the social agitators and politicos decided that executing Farmer Jean and Father Jaques was well within the bounds of acceptability. Subsequently, some of those aforementioned scientists and thinkers protested this radical turn and Naturally they ended up were Farmer Jean and Father Jaques ended up.

The whole “my morality/group of people is better than yours” schtick gets undermined by a simple and true statement:

Just because you espouse a viewpoint hardly means you will live up to it.

But that’s a little too hard for people to swallow, even though i suspect on an intuitive level we all accept it. So instead people engage in these silly little games of castigating something, usually personified in a group of people, they don’t like while hiding the dirty laundry of their own group.

Don’t believe me? Take an example outside of religion then - Every political party that runs in a democratic government plays that game every 4-8 years.

 

[AirLiner]

“Values shift over time”

This is essentially proving the fact that atheism is inherently nihilistic. There’s no escaping it. People in this thread can point out atheist regime death statistics, the behavior of both theists and atheists, or the historical moral standards, but this is all beside the point in atheist morality because there is no such thing. Any atheist who even attempts to say that they believe any form of morality is deluding themselves. In the materialistic worldview ideas are just atoms moving around. In this worldview not even free will exist.

Now does this mean that atheists will all eventually lead us to a nihilistic world where society has collapsed. No, luckily for us atheists are incompetent logicians. They often chose to delude themselves of the consequences of their beliefs or even not realize them at all. Honestly, alot of atheists even believe in free will. So does atheism lead to atrocities? Well not necessarily, but logically it can happen, after all having no morals logically leads to becoming a libertine. But like I said, it is often ignored or rejected.

In fact I remember on youtube I was watching the great biologist/abominable philosopher Dawkins speaking about the things that annoy him and how religion can lead to atrocities. He was stating how if you believe in your own God, you will believe that your beliefs will be the only true ones, thus leaving you open to commit atrocities if your religion commands it, you know like terrorism. So basically he was saying that religion logically leads to abominable acts.
I found this incredibly ironic coming from the man who holds the view that morals are a human illusion. I mean in atheism there are no morals, you chose to do what you want. I find this logically leading to atrocities more than religion. I mean really in the moral zeitgeist the majority decides what is moral. I mean honestly that has to be the worst choice for morality ever. It brings to mind John Paul II’s statement that “the truth is not always the same as the majority decision.”. Morality should be judged by truth and reason.

This brings me to my next point. To answer the OP’s question. Defending the assertion that morals are a byproduct of evolution should only be relevant if someone is challenging the morals’ validity. If that is the case, then merely point out that the morals are reasonable and make logical sense. A good example is sexuality; just look at my signature and see how Freud came to the same conclusion as the Catholic Church through the use of reason.

Morals are a matter of truth, hence they are objective and timeless. Just like truth, they aren’t a matter of the majority decision.

 

[TheAtheist]

People in this thread can point out atheist regime death statistics, the behavior of both theists and atheists, or the historical moral standards, but this is all beside the point in atheist morality because there is no such thing.

Actually historical moral standards has a lot to play with this - because your values shift too.

Or rather, whomever is holding onto the powers of interpretation shift the value system of your Church + the added effect of culture.

Take the very biting comparison i could draw between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

In Orthodox Theology and history - not once do you see a validation for holy war. In fact, Benedict XVI actually quoted one of the Byzantine Emperors’ in his criticism about Islam. “Why does man need war for God?”

Which is also why Alexius Comnenus couldn’t understand the Western Catholic drive for Crusade nor the Islamic drive for Jyhad. How can one fight for God if God rules the world?

Yet Feudalistic warfare were accepted if not outright condoned by your Church during certain periods.

Now my atheists brethren will start screaming calling this a sign of Christianity’s inherent problem - i would claim otherwise.

This is an institutional failure - when faced with the hard decision of surviving in a world without a Roman Empire to keep law and order YOUR CHURCH BUCKLED.

Many of my Orthodox friends take you to task for this - until i kindly point out that living under the protection of a Byzantine Emperor - one doesn’t have to make the hard decisions do they?

Your institution made a simple, pragmatic choice to accept the prevailing culture of Western Europe which was far more barbaric than that found in the lands of Asia Minor.

To your credit: some of your best Monastic institutions struggled against it. But they could never overcome the political interests invested in the Vatican itself.

So your Church became the rubber stamp for a variety of causes that i know the current leadership in the Vatican would rather face death than ever approve.

---

Any atheist who even attempts to say that they believe any form of morality is deluding themselves. In the materialistic worldview ideas are just atoms moving around. In this worldview not even free will exist.

The inherent problem with this statement is that your assuming the universe is rational in the sense that it is made for us.

By our nature, humans are Irrational beings. How often do we delude ourselves with our own emotions? Our thoughts, our hopes, our fears - that is the sum total of all our delusions right there.

I find this logically leading to atrocities more than religion.

But your falling into the same trap that Dawkins falls into with his blind rage toward religion. Your creating an abstraction that without a set of rationally defined moral guidelines - people will just go around killing each other.

If anything - you’ve gutted us of our emotions with that statement. You’ve denied any of us the possibility of acting on our feelings.

Animals even do that.

 

[TheAtheist]

I take issue with the whole entire idea that people work out a moral code in their minds and then go act on it.

To paraphrase Socrates → How often do we do the reverse? The criminal does not admit his guilt because he believes he is justified.

We often act on our own personal psychology and then rationalize it later on.

Some of us may have the foresight and reflection to work on this issues first before acting, but how often do our personal biases get in the way?

---

What utterly sickens me about this thread (and one of the things i hoped to get away from by migrating to this board away from a place like say Infidels.org) is that everyone seems to be denying a simple piece of proof before your eyes.

With the way that folks like Crowsnow or AirLiner express themselves, i’d half expect all the atheists in the world to be plotting the deaths of every theists because we “lack morals and do it cause we feel like it” and every theist in the world plotting the death of every atheist because “Religion is inherently violent.”

BUT WE DON’T DO THAT.

Buffalo ain’t coming to kill me with a shotgun. Crowsnow isn’t making a uni-bomber style list of all the Christians in his neighborhood.

Because how we interact with people, the manner in which we relate to people, IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY WHAT WE BELIEVE.

 

[JohnCalominas]

So instead people engage in these silly little games of castigating something, usually personified in a group of people, they don’t like while hiding the dirty laundry of their own group.

By this statement alone, do i have to say your probably one of the smartest atheists i’ve ever encountered.

And its for that reason i have to say this: Drop this thread.

You’ve made logical and clear cut remarks to everyone reading this thing, and all they’ve done is to try and jam in their viewpoints and their conclusions at the very end.

I’ve even notice the “subtle edits” - the other atheist dude immediately references theism as being evil even after your taxonomy about how it wouldn’t make sense to say that. The Catholic dude who replies to you decides to only account for atheist death toll numbers without referencing or even acknowledging any fault in our church’s history.

Silly Atheist, you may be smart and you may be moderated. But they aren’t interested in historical discussions regardless of how true the things you say are true. And frankly, i think you hit the nail on the head a lot of times too.

They’ve chosen to see the whole world through the eyes of this debate. It probably colors everything that they do. The fact that this is an Internet debate makes these actions so much easier because no one has to get their hands dirty.

You said it yourself right? Abstractions. There is this image in their head about what an atheist and theist looks like, thinks like, acts like. And they would prefer to maintain that image or selectivity choose their examples than account for the whole swathe, the whole mass of humanity that picks and chooses what to believe without undertaking all the immoral actions they have alluded to.

I wouldn’t fret about it though. More than half the things i see written online is simply, in my humble opinion, hot air.

Besides - its not like anything actually gets accomplished by these sorts of things. No one here is a politician, their viewpoints will not prevail on the general public. That’s the upside of this being an internet debate.

So take some advice from the Good Book my friend. From Matthew when he wrote

“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”

May God bless you and keep you TheAtheist. For i suspect you do more for Him than you realize.

 

[buffalo]

---

The inherent problem with this statement is that your assuming the universe is rational in the sense that it is made for us.

That is the basis of science, that the universe is intelligible. It is the basis of the Church advancing science. Otherwise what could we know about it?

 

[CSUNGerrie]

To say that “Atheism” or “Christianity” causes destruction and death completely whitewashes a lot of underlying issues such as Interpretation of doctrine, Political and Social Norms, Economic issues, et al.

The whole “my morality/group of people is better than yours” schtick gets undermined by a simple and true statement:

Just because you espouse a viewpoint hardly means you will live up to it.

But that’s a little too hard for people to swallow, even though i suspect on an intuitive level we all accept it. So instead people engage in these silly little games of castigating something, usually personified in a group of people, they don’t like while hiding the dirty laundry of their own group…

Your right. It is not a numbers game. I also agree that atheism and Christianity labels white washes the underlying issue. However, where we **may ** disagree is in what we think is the underlying issue.

While secular thinkers might look at the world and say death, pain, violence, war is a result of “interpretation of doctrine, Political and Social Norms, Economic issues, et al…” I feel that one must go one step below that. We must go to the real heart of the problem. And I argue that is Sin. Sin can help explain why an atheist and a theist commit such horrible crimes.

An atheist can talk about this future utopia all he wants but he still sins. A theist can talk about love all he wants, but he also sins.

However, what are we to do when a particular worldview **may **not allow for the possibility of sin. When a secular thinker says… “no such thing… the only cause of problems is inadequate social structure, economic issues etc.”

Under such a perspective, our only conclusion is to try our best to fix these factors (i.e. economic problems) then everything will be ok. But that ignores the X factor and only replaces physical pain with inner pain. As Chesterton says, “meaningless does not come from being weary of pain, meaningless comes from being weary of pleasure.”

I feel like even an atheist can recognize sin and what may result from its denial. Hobart Mowar (one time president of the American Psychological Association) published a paper in the American Psychologist in which he recognized this precise issue. In one section, he wrote: “For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch-making. But at length we have discovered that to be “free” in this sense, i.e., to have the excuse of being “sick” rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in Existentialism which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral, and “free,” we have cut the very roots of our being; lost our deepest sense of self-hood and identity; and, with
neurotics themselves, find ourselves asking: Who am I? What is my destiny? What does living (existence) mean?”

And meaninglessness brings us back to the original problem of people wondering why one should not smash the world, since it has no meaning, and human beings are of no value. It does not necessarily cause this but it does open the flood gates for this.

But I feel like recognizing the issue (Sin), while it doesn’t necessarily mean we stop sinning, it does atleast allow us to recognize the cause of war, violence, and hate for what it really is and where it comes from. Which helps us to take the first steps towards real peace in the world (even from an atheist view). Or I should say… allow him who can create peace take the first steps towards our heart (from a theist view).

In fact, Christ himself did not come to give us away to be free from pain, but instead invited us to participate in it since he participated in ours.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Because how we interact with people, the manner in which we relate to people, IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY WHAT WE BELIEVE.

First off, I partly agree with the JohnCalominas comment. You are a smart, reasonable and well balanced atheist. I commend you for that. Never met one before so I greatly respect you.

In response to your main point, which I perceive to be why play this pointing game when one way or another what we believe does not determine what we do - I would ask you why is this?

That is, from your perspective, why is it that we do do not do what we believe and that even our emotions themselves do not do what we believe. So I might intellectually be determined to loose weight, but yet I might scarf down a bag of Doritos even through this wasnt what even my emotions wanted. My emotions wanted to be thin, my intellect was determined to see me not do what I hated… and yet I still did it. Why?

I think that is the main point isnt it? We are perhaps applying labels that ignore human nature.
I think Paul does an excellent job of addressing this point in his letter to the Romans:

“For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."

But listen to his response to this: “But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.”

It all comes back to sin. What do you think?

 

[crowonsnow]

It all comes back to sin. What do you think?

What exactly is “sin?” I mean if a Catholic values life, how can that same Catholic also believe that Hitler may be in heaven? How can you claim to know what “sin” is if you cannot know this? In other words, what good is believing in “sin” if you also believe that Hitler may be in heaven?

I would consider it “sinful” to hold that Hitler may be in heaven. Is Hitler just another thief on the cross? And if so, doesn’t that devalue life, something you accuse non theists of doing? Perhaps you would care to explain.

 

[buffalo]

What exactly is “sin?” I mean if a Catholic values life, how can that same Catholic also believe that Hitler may be in heaven? How can you claim to know what “sin” is if you cannot know this? In other words, what good is believing in “sin” if you also believe that Hitler may be in heaven?

I would consider it “sinful” to hold that Hitler may be in heaven. Is Hitler just another thief on the cross? And if so, doesn’t that devalue life, something you accuse non theists of doing? Perhaps you would care to explain.

The only unforgivable sin is the sin of despair, which is thinking there exist an unforgivable sin. God’s mercy is infinite, but He is also perfectly just. All sins will be forgiven if repentant. So no matter what Hitler had done if at the last moment he repented and was perfectly contrite he could go to Purgatory to be further purified and then heaven, He still has a huge debt to pay. At the final judgement all his deeds and the effects on everyone everywhere will be bared for all to see.

So you see it has less to do with your sin than your state at death. Are you facing God and asking forgiveness or have you simply turned your back to Him? Mortal sin is turning your back to Him, a free will choice you make, not God.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

What exactly is “sin?” I mean if a Catholic values life, how can that same Catholic also believe that Hitler may be in heaven? How can you claim to know what “sin” is if you cannot know this? In other words, what good is believing in “sin” if you also believe that Hitler may be in heaven?

hehe… so if a Christian believes in hell… there stupid for believing that a loving God would allow hell to exist. If a Christian believes that even someone like Hitler could potentially be in heaven if he repented… then a Christian is stupid for believing that.
I find this so silly it is funny.

 

[crowonsnow]

hehe… so if a Christian believes in hell… there stupid for believing that a loving God would allow hell to exist. If a Christian believes that even someone like Hitler could potentially be in heaven if he repented… then a Christian is stupid for believing that.
I find this so silly it is funny.

So what exactly is sin?

 

[CSUNGerrie]

So what exactly is sin?

**1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.**

 

[crowonsnow]

**1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.**

The subject is atheist morality and so I’m trying to relate “sin” to morality, and whether it’s moral to believe someone like Hitler is in heaven while his victims are not. You brought up the subject of sin.

If I believe Hitler is deserving of heaven while his victims are not that would strike me as a sin, something immoral. Apparently you do not agree. Could you please explain?

I would think I am being reasonable, truthful, and acting in good conscience by making such a determination. And I think Hitler clearly acted in disobedience to your Jesus. Don’t you think?

But yet you seem inclined to believe that Hitler could be in this heaven while his victims are not. Doesn’t this bring your notion of what is “moral” into question?

But if you are equating morality with loyalty to your beliefs, then I can understand what you mean. That’s what everyone does.

 

[wasmit]

Read it if you dare.

can you help me with this question?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5089331&postcount=49

?

 

[CSUNGerrie]

The subject is atheist morality and so I’m trying to relate “sin” to morality, and whether it’s moral to believe someone like Hitler is in heaven while his victims are not. You brought up the subject of sin.

If I believe Hitler is deserving of heaven while his victims are not that would strike me as a sin, something immoral. Apparently you do not agree. Could you please explain?

I would think I am being reasonable, truthful, and acting in good conscience by making such a determination. And I think Hitler clearly acted in disobedience to your Jesus. Don’t you think?

But yet you seem inclined to believe that Hitler could be in this heaven while his victims are not. Doesn’t this bring your notion of what is “moral” into question?

But if you are equating morality with loyalty to your beliefs, then I can understand what you mean. That’s what everyone does.

Ah I see. Now I understand the connection you were making. I am not inclined to believe one or the other. I can call a man damnable but not damn him. Is it possible that Hitler is in heaven, it is possible. Is it possible that he is in hell, it is. I never said he was deserving of heaven more than his victims, I am not sure where you got that. You are forgetting that NO ONE is deserving of heaven. Not his victims, not hitler, not mother teresa, NO ONE is deserving. We get to heaven only through the grace of God. Do you know what Grace is? (I am trying to ask this in a derogatory way).

But I think you hit on a point that was very profound in my conversion. This seemingly backwards morality that Jesus presents. This man who when people were going to rightly stone a prostitute caught in adultery says, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” This makes you think WHAT?! Why is he defending that slut! It makes us all want to pose the same question you posed here, “If I believe that a slut is deserving of heaven more than the religious leaders of that time that would strike me as a sin, something immoral.”

Or to give another example, the prodigal son. A man has two sons one of which completely screw’s his father over by spending all his inheritance on debauchery and then, after loosing it all, decides to come crawling home to beg for forgiveness. We read that story and think… “oh man… he is going to get it now!. His father is going to rebuke him for all he did and maybe even hang him as he praises his other son who has worked with him all these years.” And yet… what happens? The prodigal son get’s welcomed back with open arms, and tears in his fathers eyes. The story that breaks your heart. And yet, here comes the son who has worked for his father loyally all his years and is upset that his father did not kill his brother who wasted all his fathers fortune. At this point we cant help of bringing up your question again, “If I believe that a low life, good for nothing, selfish brat is deserving of heaven more than the son who worked loyally for his father then that would strike me as a sin, something immoral.”

Here is the difference. In both cases, our objections, your objections, are answered by the mystery which is Love. Although it seems like a problem to read a story like the prodigal son since you empathize with the loyal son, i instead used the word mystery for a special reason. Namely, that the diffrence between a problem and mystery is that you question a problem but a mystery questions you. I forgot who put it this way, “getting to mars is a problem… but Love is a mystery, the problem of pain is a mystery, God is a mystery”

So my point is that in looking at some of these biblical stories about the prodigal son or the prostitute who was to be stoned, though we think “Aha! I caught you God! Your very immoral for defending these people” Instead we have God saying, “Aha! I caught you, for after reading this story and hearing of my Love, your heart is broken and you now realize what a sinner you are for sympathizing with the pharisee’s who wanted to stone the prostitute, or the son who felt angry that his father was rejoicing to have his dead son alive again… or with Judas when he rebukes the woman who covers Jesus feet with perfume.” In all of these cases, you realize that our sense of morality (in many but not all matters) is so warped that we cannot predict what Jesus would do. Even well renowned secular thinkers acknowledge the surprise that is constantly encountered by reading the new testament. And yet, it is a wonderful surprise.

Last point. If you have never read Genesis I highly encourage you to do so. In it, you hear the story of Jacob and Esau who were brothers. His blind father Isaac was going to give his blessing to Esau but Jacob pretends to be Esau and steals his brothers blessing. Isaac asks Jacob, Who are you? and Jacob replies I am Esau. So when Esau finds out, he is furious and wants to kill his brother. So Jacob runs away like the liar, coward and thief that he is. He spends a long time in a foreign land until finally he decides to go back and confront his brother. The night before he meets up with his brother Jacob wrestles with God and upon pinning him and asking God to give him his blessing, God asks him a remarkable question: “WHO ARE YOU?” That is when Jacob thinks, just like we all must think when we first read the new testament “You got me… I am Jacob.”

And it isn’t till then that God says, you have answered right and because you finally confronted who you really are (a sinner, liar, thief) now I am going to make something great of you. So I invite you to confront who you really know you are and let God make a great man out of you.

No one is deserving of heaven. But through Jesus blood we have been given the gift of life that he offers freely.