a dialogue

I had an assignment to write a dialogue between a non-christian and a christian. the dialogue had specific things that it needed to cover. i saw this not only as an opportunity to do well on a paper, but also to contiue the story of ray, seth, and the others.

so. this is the rough dialogue between ray and seth. it doesn't have any narration. but i think it flows well without it. let me know what you think. I will most likely edit it and add narration later. It is a bit lengthy so forgive me.

--------------------------------

SETTING: Two friends, Ray and Seth, are continuing a dialogue that has spanned several conversations. Over the time their relationship has developed a level of trust and respect. What follows is a continuation of previous conversations.

RAY: So what were we talking about when we met last time?

SETH: Agnosticism, I think. I had said that I didn’t know if there was or wasn’t a God, but thought it was important enough to look into it.

RAY: Yeah, open agnosticism. We had discussed the three types of agnosticism. Closed, open, and ignosticism.

SETH: Right. Closed agnostics didn’t know and didn’t want to look for answers. Ignostics didn’t know and didn’t really care. They chose to be ignorant.

RAY: Yeah, so we established that you don’t know if there is or isn’t a God, but you are willing to explore the possibility.

SETH: So that makes me an open agnostic. Right?

RAY: More or less. So where do you want to go from here? What is the next step?

SETH: Well, I am not sure. What do you suggest?

RAY: I think that we should explore the possible outcomes if there is no God. If we look at those results we can make other assumptions as to whether or not that line of thought makes sense.

SETH: Ok, so in order to prove that there is a God, you want me to explore what happens if there is no God?

RAY: Well, yes, but my role is not to prove or disprove anything. My role is to help you make those realizations.

SETH: Ok, so where do we start?

RAY: I’ll ask you a few questions. Then we can try to find good….no, the best answer we can.

SETH: Sounds good, let’s get started.

RAY: Let’s start with the assumption that there is no God. How did life start?

SETH: Well, some people believe in some sort of cosmic event that started everything; some kind of “big boom.”

RAY: Ok, so what initiated this cosmic event?

SETH: I’m not sure. Maybe it was a chemical explosion.

RAY: Maybe, but where did the chemicals come from? Remember this is “in the beginning.”

SETH: Good question. I see where this is going though. If there is no God, then how do non-existent chemicals interact with other non-existent chemicals? What sets all of this cosmic coincidence in motion? There must be some primary force initiating or orchestrating everything.

RAY: That’s it. Even most scientists understand that spontaneous chemical existence is improbable if not impossible. Do you want to move on?

SETH: Yeah, I think I am ok with God being behind the creation of everything.

RAY: Let’s talk about morality. Good and bad. Do you believe in good and bad? Not in the subjective sense but in an absolute sense. Beating a child is always bad. Protecting a child is always good. That sort of thing.

SETH: Well, yeah. Certain things are definitely always bad, and others are definitely always good.

RAY: Good and bad are hard to measure. What scale do we use to measure them? Do we just use socially or culturally accepted paradigms or maybe it is a case of different rules for each person?

SETH: No, I really think there is some universal standard.

RAY: Then what is that standard? What do we use to gauge morality?

SETH: Well, governments set laws right? So thy must be the standard.

RAY: So there is no standard where there is no government?

SETH: Ah, no. I guess it is more of an inborn understanding. Something we are born with.

RAY: And where would that understanding come from, if there is no God?

SETH: So the ideas of good and bad come from God?

RAY: Sort of. Let’s think of it like this: If the God of the Bible is real, and the biblical descriptions of God’s characteristics are true, then we know a few personality traits of God, don’t we?

SETH: Those are big “IF’S,” but I want to see where this is going.

RAY: Ok, so “if” all of that is true, then we know that God is good, loving, creative, merciful, and gracious.

SETH: Because the Bible tells me so?

RAY: Yeah. Ha. Nice joke, but the Bible does tell us all of that. If all of that is true, then we can assume that the opposite of those characteristics must also describe the opposite of God.

SETH: So, if God is good, loving, creative, merciful, and gracious then the opposite is bad, hateful, destructive, merciless, and condemning, right?

RAY: In so many words. So we just established the polarization of good and bad: good on one side, bad on the other. How did we define the two?

SETH: God defines good, and the opposite of good is the opposite of God.

RAY: Yes. So does it make sense that moral standards (good versus bad) and the ability to understand them comes from the ultimate measurement of goodness, God?

SETH: I think so. I can see your point. Without God, there would be no absolute good or bad, just subjective perception of good and bad.

RAY: You’re getting it now. So let’s bring it all back together. If there is no God, then the existence of life is nothing but a cosmic coincidence (even if we can’t figure out how non-existent chemicals can become existent on their own.) Whether creation or evolution, something had to be the catalyst.

SETH: We also explored morality: good verses bad. We concluded that God’s personality is the measuring tool for morality. So what’s next?

RAY: Well, we can talk about the reasons some people choose not to believe in God.

SETH: Ok. That could be tough, but I’m up for it.

RAY: Why do you think some people do not believe in God?

SETH: Well, sometimes I doubt there is a God because there seems to be so much bad stuff in the world. You know, pain, suffering, disease, all that.

RAY: Ok, what does that make it difficult to believe in God?

SETH: I guess it is difficult to imagine a loving God allowing such bad things.
RAY: I can understand how hard that could be for you.

SETH: It isn’t a problem for you?

RAY: Not really. I realize that all the “bad stuff” wasn’t part of God’s initial plan. Free will was part of the plan, and humanity’s choice to disobey God resulted in the consequences we experience. Humanity rebelled and caused creation to kind of slip. Everything was impacted. Think of it like this: the hurricanes in the gulf have been called tools of God’s vengeance by a lot of people. But the hurricanes aren’t part of God’s vengeance, more likely they are a result of humanity’s irresponsible stewardship of the rest of creation. We pollute, contaminate, exploit, and destroy so much of the eco-system everyday. Do we really think that those actions have no natural consequences? Humanity pollutes creation, and as a result waters warm, temperatures rise, radiation enters the atmosphere, disease mutates, and storms churn. Humanity’s disobedience results in consequences and like spoiled children we want to blame the parent for the natural consequences of our actions.

SETH: Wow. I have never really heard of it like that. That really makes sense. So what happens? Humanity rebels and God allows natural consequences to take place, but is that all there is?

RAY: No. The great part is that God wants creation; humanity, earth, everything to be like it was intended. So God promised to restore it one day. But that is jumping ahead quite a bit. What other reasons keep people from believing?

SETH: For me, it is hard to believe that some of the miraculous events in the Bible really took place. I have tried to read and research them, but always get the same easy answer: if you have faith, you will believe. I think I need to know about the validity of miracles before I have faith or belief.

RAY: That’s a good transition. What about miracles? Maybe we should define a miracle. What do you think a miracle is?

SETH: Hmm. I guess it has something to do with going against natural laws or something like that.

RAY: Good thought. Let me elaborate. A miracle is when the supernatural meets the natural and results in the unnatural.

SETH: Good definition. I am following you.

RAY: So, by definition, a miracle is going to be hard to believe because it isn’t natural. It isn’t something that we can reproduce. It happens when the supernatural (God) meets the natural (humanity, earth, creation).

SETH: This is a little deep, but it makes some sense to me.

RAY: Most people can’t accept miracles as possible because they don’t want to think of natural laws being able to be bent or broken. What we have to understand is that God is not bound by laws of nature. God created nature. Do you remember watching cartoons as a kid?

SETH: Yeah, of course.

RAY: Well let’s say that one day Mickey Mouse decides that there are laws to his universe (which consists of a sheet of paper and a desk). These laws state that if your hand gets crushed then you can blow on your thumb and your hand will re-inflate. If the animator, Walt Disney, leaves the office and someone shuts his hand in a door, can he just blow on his thumb and avoid a trip to the hospital.

SETH: No. he would probably have a broken hand.

RAY: So the laws of the creation don’t apply to the creator.

SETH: AH, now I get it. So God can interact in anyway he chooses, not just in ways that humanity has defined and natural.

RAY: I couldn’t have said it better myself.

SETH: Wow. This stuff is giving me a headache.

RAY: One last topic then we will call it a day.

SETH: All right. Fire away.

RAY: Let’s say there is a God, that miracles take place, and even more incredible the Son of God really came to earth. Most people can agree that there is historic proof to support the idea that a holy teacher named Jesus lived in the Jerusalem area around 30AD. They even agree that he was probably put to death for his teachings against Rome and the Jewish elite. The Christian faith hinges on one specific miracle: the resurrection. What do you make of that?

SETH: This is a tough one.

RAY: So why do you think that people don’t believe in the resurrection?

SETH: Because a man rising from the dead is so unlikely. Most people would think that there has to be a more intelligent reason for the belief: like he was not really dead, but unconscious from his wounds or that the real story ends with his death, but believers added the resurrection part later.

RAY: Those are great points and many people have had the same thoughts throughout the centuries. But let me ask you something. How could a religion, that started while its leader was alive, continue for 2000 years if it were false? Better yet, the people writing the records of the life of Jesus were writing while the first believers were still alive, able to dispute them.

SETH: That’s a good point. Are there resources outside of the Bible that support the claim of the resurrection?

RAY: Yes and no. A historian named Flavius Josephus wrote within the first century. He recorded many of Jesus’ claims and the claims of the disciples as noteworthy. Josephus had no stake in granting respect to Jesus or the Christians because he was a Roman Jew. So his bias actually helps support Christian claims.

SETH: That’s pretty interesting. I just don’t know if I can believe it though.

RAY: Well what obstacle stands in your way?

SETH: I guess it is the whole unnatural thing.

RAY: I can understand that. To be honest, I think most Christians have to struggle with the resurrection at some point.

SETH: You did?

RAY: Sure. It seems so unlikely. But think of a few things for a second. If Jesus was buried like the biblical account says, then everyone would know where the tomb was. A wealthy member of the Jewish high court owned the tomb. When stories popped up about Jesus coming back to life, wouldn’t the Jews examine the tomb?

SETH: That’s the first thing I would thing they would do.

RAY: And if they found Jesus’ body there, wouldn’t they expose the resurrection story as a lie?

SETH: Sure, if they had a body they had proof.

RAY: But that isn’t the case. Josephus never records that the Jews found a body.

SETH: Maybe the Christians moved the body.

RAY: Not likely, there were two Roman guards in front of the tomb and a rock so heavy it is reported to have taken several men to move. The first people to make the resurrection claim were women, it is not likely that they blindsided the Roman guards and moved an obtrusive stone without drawing attention.

SETH: Yeah, I guess you have a point there.

RAY: So the body is gone and no one could have stolen it. This alone helps support the resurrection story.

SETH: Yeah. I can see the point. It is still pretty fuzzy though. Maybe we can meet some other time to focus just on this part.

RAY: I would love to.


END SCENE.

|