The readers and commenters on this blog are a rare group, pursuing a higher and more civil level of discourse than I have seen on any other blog. Now that the post An Atheist’s Testimony has nearly a hundred comments and is still going strong, I’ve been asked to raise it again, before it moves into the archives. So feel free to continue the discussion here, with reference to the above link.
To recap where we are, Michael the Little Boot has told us with great honesty about how, after being raised in fundamentalism, he became an atheist. He says that he does not believe in sin, though he strongly agrees that we are imperfect (which is what Christians mean by sin). He does not have the conception of God that Christians do, as someone who is wholly “other” than human beings, so that differences are showing up about the deity in which he does not believe. Nor does he understand what Christians mean by “faith,” demanding instead clear, rational knowledge rather than trust, dependence, and the evidence of what is not seen. A key issue is the gospel, which seems to have been obscured in Michael’s rather legalistic upbringing. He does say that he cannot shake that fundamentalist background, try as he might. Frank Sonnek makes the intriguing suggestion that it was GOOD that he lost that legalistic faith, a loss that might lead him to the real thing. I’d like to hear more about the Christian belief that God is INCARNATE–not an abstraction far above and looking down, but that He came down from Heaven to suffer and die with us and for us.
Anyway, it’s an excellent conversation on both sides, and I invite its continuation here.
231 comments ↓
It also might be a great idea to create a sidebar feature highlighting key posts. It would be a great way for newcomers to gain a quick flavor of your blog and also for regulars to find favorite threads. I’ve done it on my blog, so it can’t be too hard!
I would really like to see the readers here ask more questions from Michael. Most of the posts seem to be assertions of claimed truth and fact from ones who know the answers to someone who seems not to know….. Yoda to Luke Skywalker. I am not so wise. It seems that there is really only one thing that I know for certain. And I still know so very little about that One Thing. So I am mostly observing in this thread.
While I find that I agree with many of the claims asserted by the posters ( I am a Lutheran Christian after all…), I don´t really see bat connecting to ball most of the time because I don´t see questions that probe to understand exactly what Michael believes (or doesn´t believe for that matter) and why he believes those things. No intimate or incarnational response to our friend Michael is therefore possible. Or even perceivedly necessary in that context.
Truth needs no defense because it is the Truth. I don´t need to defend the proposition that gravity exists. I might see a need to declare that truth to someone ready to jump from a tall building unaware of the fact.
Or not. Depends on the context.
On a movie set for example, I might take a chill pill and watch and enjoy….
It is a burden lifted to not have to worry about all that. I only need to attend to the (seemingly) mundane humbling details of my life with great care and as act of worship and leave the rest to Him. I bring joy to what I do. In Him. What I do is not what brings me joy. It merely amplifies it if I put first things where they belong.
What is Truth. For me Jesus IS, in-His-very-person THE Truth. He is the way, and the life as well. Facts. Proven by an empty tomb at a certain time in history. Note that this is not a philosophical proposition. Nor is it spirituality. It is intimately connected to flesh and bone, arms, legs, and even those body parts that might seem pornographic to name here. My God has all of those body parts. (this idea would be an offense to even many christians). He is The Truth. Meaning that truth has no existence apart from His existence as God and as Man. I ponder that fact often. And He is flesh and bone. He is not an anatomically deficient action figure.
I am really happy to just enjoy Michael as one of God´s fellow creatures. And I DO enjoy him very much. He has a wry and sometimes sarcastic sense of humor, but he never seems to lose a basic kindness and some fine human qualities that endear me to him. He knows how to apologize and he knows how to forgive. This looks for all the world like the kind of company that I like to keep. He is one of God´s rare gifts to me. The simple fact is that he was with Jesus in the waters of the Jordan and on the cross right along with me and the rest of the flotsam and jetsam flowing through the course of history.
I am not at all worried about his salvation because I am so very convinced that my God, looking at Jesus, cares every bit as much about him and his well being and happiness as he does about my own. Why would I doubt that for a minute or feel I need to DO or say something to make that more so?
As a gay man I am least (apparently ) likely even to get the crumbs that fall from the masters table. Now I am seated AT the table…daring to eat and drink the Most Holy of material things at the feast of things that are now and to come. It is good for someone like me that the Kingdom comes in ways that are not seen. Indeed.
So what that fact means for me is…. I can just focus on the very serious and important business of enjoying my friend Michael. God will work things out with him in good time. It´s not up to me to do that. My gift is to enjoy him. So I do! Just maybe if I understand where he is coming from better and sincerely, he will teach me how to be more graceful and humble in my approach towards others. It appears he has already taught me so very much in that respect. I am most grateful to him for all of that. (yes michael I WILL get to your emails soon enough…. I am actually rereading them now…).
I think I have alot to learn from Michael. Probably more than he will be able to learn from me. Let´s see… Adventures without a seen ending can be fun.
In my baptism, at a certain point of time in history that is MY own history, The One has become MY way and life and truth. I cannot see anything true or life-full in my life as existing without Him.
It would be so very cool to see this conversation get more personal and more carnal (in-carnation-al). Just as our good host seems to be suggesting.
Frank,
I don’t know your email address, so I’ll just write to you on this blog. I appreciate knowing you! My Christian life here on earth has been made more real by knowing (in a digital sense) your faith story. The way that you accept your state of being, in relation to the fact and purpose of Christ’s life, death and resurrection and as things now are on this plane of existence, and the way you honestly cling to the cross of Christ as your only hope is so humbling to me. Your comments usually point me right to the cross. I think that is the best any of us can hope for in our own comments. I initially hesitated to answer Michael because I figured, “What’s the point? Why waste my time? It’s God’s job to save him and there is nothing I can say to a person who at first glance is pretty combative.” Then after lambasting him and getting a pretty meek, mild and kind reply from him, my heart was softened quite a bit. I still don’t know what I could possible say to him, yet I think that is your point…quit trying to come up with something profound to say.
This whole recent exchange has important implications for me as the mom of older teens. I need to patiently listen and gently remind, not preach coldly.
I don’t read Dr. Veith as calling for greater seeker-sensitivity.
And I don’t see the need to call fellow Christians to task on the manner of engagement.
The problem of engaging the seeker on his own terms is in the seeker setting the terms not only of the debate, but on the tone, and allowing the seeker’s own perceptions of terms and tones such wide sway.
At any rate, the God we believe and trust in is not ‘our God’, but His own God. As my Pastor so helpfully and repeatedly pointed out to us in yesterday’s sermon, God is not like us. We are only ‘like God’ through Christ.
Now, how do we explain that to an unbeliever? Well, is there any way to do that, and in a way which will benefit him? While he is still in unbelief, I don’t see an atheist comprehending it.
So, do we stop saying it, then, or give up on ways of saying it, since it’s had no perceivable effect?
Coincidentally, Jim Pierce of The Wittenberg Trail has just posted the first in a series of essays on his own former atheism. Here’s a salient tidbit:
‘The very object [atheists] deny exists is somehow an object of great dislike and one which occupies much of their thought life in so far as arguing why that object should not exist!’
I see a lot of this in what Michael writes. Unfortunately, pointing that out to him (and as a former atheist myself) only led to irritating Michael. Or enraging him.
Jim Pierce is quick to point out that his essay isn’t about himself or his ‘accomplishment’ of faith, but that he only hopes to point to Christ.
So, it’s important for Michael to understand and to trust that we aren’t speaking of ourselves or our belief as something we’ve chosen or decided upon or invented or picked from off a menu of possibilities, and it’s just as important for Michael to understand and to trust that we’re not boasting or setting ourselves over him, nor thinking we’re more highly evolved or superior in any way.
But that’s difficult to do, when he’s still stumbling over our believing in anything at all.
Sorry, Michael, don’t mean to speak as if you’re not ‘in the room’. I hope you understand that we can only say what we believe, and that it will always sound foreign and even silly to you until you believe.
But it would be helpful if you’d do us the courtesy of not presuming that you’re being talked down to or being misunderstood, either deliberately or thru carelessness, or that your history isn’t important. But, admit that your story is what got you this far. And that you’re here of your own choice, maybe even for something more than telling us about yourself.
This God Who died for us is as real–and not just to us, but real outside of us–as our own children, as our own selves. He permitted His own death, not to make Himself a martyr, or even an ultimate martyr, and not to astound the world by such an act, but to atone for our ‘imperfections’. And that the only thing He desires of us is our belief in Him. We don’t worship Him merely to praise Him or to tell Him how much we love Him, or to show our gratitude, or to show anything at all to Him, but to get more of Him that He’s simply giving away. He’s not a vain God who awaits our songs and praises, or even our money or our time, but a loving God who wants us restored to Him. Being a god, He could be indifferent to our plight and ask for great feats fromus to prove our love, or He could be indifferent to the point of wiping us all out with one stroke and starting over with a better race of beings.
But He’s not that God. He’s not like us. He goes to more-than-merely-great lengths to win us back to Him, more than for the purpose of having us acknowledge Him, but to simply be with Him, both now and in eternity.
Michael, I strongly encourage you to read Jim Pierce’s essay, and hope we’ll soon be blessed with more insight from him, here:
http://lawandgospel.typepad.com/law_and_gospel/
on the July 13 entry.
It’s not me wanting to prove anything to you, least of all that I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s just a hope that you’ll see some of your own dilemma in what he has to say, as a one-time unbeliever himself.
Hey teresa K. thanks for the nice words. Nothing could please me more than telling me that I always point to Jesus. I don´t think there is a higher compliment for a Lutheran christian to hear.
I have passed by your blog a few times. You have an interesting faith-life. Someday, I am quite certain that we will meet and share a few good laughs!
My dear (cyber) sister Susan! if you felt I was trying to orient the bloggers here on how to be more seeker friendly, I do apologize for that is most certainly not my place, and besides, you and the others seem alot more knowledgable about life and theology ( I say that sincerely!) than I would come close to venturing to claim for my own self.
Jesus is all I seem to know for sure, and I seem to ever just begin to become acquainted with Him. Just when I think I am beginning to know Him, I realize I have made Him after my own image. Again. And He surprises me in a way that does not always make me comfortable, but gives me more peace. Yes I know that makes no sense…
Susan I have come to know you are a modest woman, and so have not shared alot of your story, but you must have endured no small amount of overcome obstacles in your life to have the strength of character and conviction that I have observed from you and in you over time.
Again my apologies if I came across the wrong way. I have been talking to Michael for a while now. I just was trying to express that maybe if others asked more questions of him that I might learn more from and about him that my personal limitations have so far prevented me from enjoying…
ah teresa. fwsonnek@gmail.com
excuse me tHeresa. my bad.
FW,
Thanks for the wonderful words. So nice.
I tend to get caught up in answering when I’m on this blog. I’d like to get back to dialoging. I admit I have a hard time doing the latter, keeping my head cool. This is still an area that has a lot of “hot” nerves for me, so I can get carried away with emotion.
My real reason for being here is to learn. I don’t want to think there’s really ever ANYWHERE I can go that I won’t learn if I’m teachable. Open.
So it seems it’s good to get a fresh start, a part two to the thread. None of us agree on EVERYTHING here, so it would be nice to start with that assumption. As you’ve suggested to me before, FW, it’s nice to start with what we agree on, so more questions would be good toward that end. To me, as well as from me.
So, Michael: Two questions:
1) Am I presuming too much in thinking you don’t buy it when we say we didn’t concoct this God we believe in, or that the God we believe in exists outside our ideas of Him (He came first; not the human-imagined God)?
2) Do you think that, since so many believers get belief wrong and do such harm, like those you were once among, that there then can be no right belief, or no God who’s real?
Michael:
I posed a number of questions @93 on the earlier thread (which you can find by clicking on the “older posts” link. I look forward to your reply.
Susan @ 9,
1) I don’t think you concocted the God you believe in. I think it’s definitely possible the concept of the God you believe in WAS created by a human or humans long ago. But of course I don’t know that. And it doesn’t really factor into my thinking, other than to ackowledge it as a possibility, but one that will probably never have any hard evidence in its favor. I have to admit it’s a possibility because it IS; but it’s not a possibility to which I devote a lot of thought.
If God exists, God definitely exists outside any conception of God. Just like I exist outside any conception of myself, BY myself or others.
2) I don’t think just because we all get so much wrong that it has any bearing on what is real. What is real exists outside our opinions of it, which usually, at least thus far, tend to be wrong, or at least partially incorrect - until we look at a given subject for a long time (a looooooong time), trying with everything in us to be as objective as possible. But I don’t take the imperfect reflections of our ideas of perfection to be any indication as to the “realness” of God, one way or the other.
As far as right belief…I don’t know what that means. We stack beliefs like wood for winter, we humans. It mostly ends up, to me, looking like that trick math problem we all saw as kids. You know, the one some whiz figured out once we learned about multiplications involving zero? You make an equation based on multiplying a huge succession of single numbers, taking care to hide one “zero” among the other integers. Inevitably, at least one child will miss the zero and come up with a large number as the answer. The other child will laugh and point out the zero.
What I mean by that is: once you get enough beliefs stacked on top of each other, all you need to do is miss one zero to come up with the completely wrong answer. So I guess my question is: what do you mean by “right belief”?
kerner @ 10,
To keep things current, I’d like to answer here (hope I am not remiss in so doing):
I didn’t know the guys in Jars of Clay. I met them once when I was a senior in high school, while I was visiting the school. They were in the studio at Greenville recording their first independent release. They wouldn’t remember that meeting of course! I do because it was the first time I was ever in a recording studio. I have always, unfortunately, found their music boring. No accounting for taste, as they say!
Hogue Hall’s needed to go for years. It was protected as a state monument, I think. They’re gonna need to find a new symbol for the college. Hogue’s on all the letterheads!
They may not mention the cross often enough for you in the lit on the site; rest assured they laid it on thick three times a week at chapel. Plus, it’s been a few years since I went to the school. They’ve gone through some changes over the years. I wouldn’t be privy to all the info regarding that. But they are affiliated with the Free Methodist denomination, if that tells you anything.
Thanks for the suggestion on where to become acquainted with Lutheran theology. I’ll have to check it out when I go on break sometime, as I continue to suffer without a home computer (Bill Gates had a dream; now he has money; still the dream goes unfulfilled!). As a substitute, I’ve put the copy we have in the library system where I work on hold, and should have it in a few days. It’s not the only thing I’ll be reading, but I’ll try to get through it so I can understand others on The Blog of Veith.
What is it about Lutheran theology that doesn’t fit into your national culture? What do you mean by that? Are you referring to the US (it seems a lot of people here are from US, so if you are not, I mean no disrespect in implying you are from a country which you are not actually from)? Or a subculture within a larger culture?
As far as what I’m asking for: well, nothing, really. But if you mean what would I WISH God to be if I believed there was such a being? I think, simply, someone who is not so pompous as to put him/her/itself above the creatures he/she/it created simply because he/she/it created them. It’s a mistake a lot of parents make, that they deserve respect solely on the basis of having conceived and given birth to a child. My parents did that, too. They then proceeded to teach me almost nothing of value when it came to living life in this world. In my mind, that means they didn’t fulfill their obligation to me as the person who had no choice but to come into being based on their actions. I would wish for a God who took responsibility for being the Power behind the Creative Act which led to our universe.
I must here acknowledge that it seems a lot of people in these pages believe God HAS taken that responsibility. These ideas have been laid out before, and I understand why many people have this belief. I disagree, respectfully.
As far as the dialog I would wish to have with God: open. Completely. Wherein I could say ANY old horribly imperfect thing sloshing around in my brainpan without fear of offending God. So I could have my belief “righted”. I love learning more than nearly all other things one could love. I love to be shown that I’m wrong because then I get to grow. So I’d like to be able to lay every sloppy thing out on the table and have God take me gently through my misconceptions. Not for the sake of my eternal soul; just ’cause I’m a nerd and love to learn new things. Who better to teach them?
You see the Bible as being the means through which God has communicated. I wonder: why did God talk plainly to humans in the past (as recorded in the Bible), but has since ceased? I mean, the God of the Bible - if what was recorded there is more or less to be believed as having actually happened - used to speak in an audible voice. Why not now? Is it just because Jesus came? We don’t live in the same world as the people who wrote the Bible. Why do we have the same words to live by? I don’t mean this in a relativistic way. I mean, the people back then didn’t have cars; didn’t have iPods; didn’t marry in the same way we do now; didn’t speak English, nor any of the other languages we speak now (not, at least, in the same versions as today). Why would God not want to put God’s words in a context more readily understandable to modern humans? Wouldn’t this work better if God spoke to us now as God spoke - with actual words - then?
I don’t want you not to quote the Bible to me “because I’ve read it”. First, I was just reminding people who have been talking to me like I’ve NEVER read the Bible to be careful with assumptions. Second, I think that quoting the Bible to someone like me often rings hollow - not only because I’ve read it, but because I’ve actually studied it and no longer believe it. It feels like a dismissal, like a brush-off. Assume I’m familiar with the material, if not the idiosyncratic interpretation, when I say I grew up in the church. If you quote the Bible to me, it’s like you’re answering me out of context. You haven’t read all the material.
Which is a problem when things get to be so wordy. I am VERY wordy. Very very. I know. But if one is going to respond to me, I would assume they’ve read enough of what I’ve written to do so. When I get Bible quotes, it’s like, “Man, they just think they’re talking to Johnny Atheist.” You know, insert Atheist Refutation #1,371 HERE. Once a human face is put to the words (and this is really difficult to keep in mind when replying to a faceless blog post), it seems much more difficult to me to toss out prefab answers. No matter if you agree with a given person’s struggle, to deny it is just to be ignorant, naive, or mean.
As far as the “testimony of witnesses” is concerned, I don’t buy it. I know it is accepted as “proof” in certain contexts, but I find those contexts to be flawed. Our system of justice is one example. Testimony itself is not enough, anyway. It must be corroborated with hard evidence, facts. This doesn’t always happen in a court of law, even though the testimony is still accepted. Plus, I find that kind of “evidence” to be easily manipulated. It’s been plainly shown that humans usually act in their own self-interest, with little regard for what is “true” when they want to show they are right. Most people would rather be right than accurate, and will bend “facts” to suit their needs.
Also, it’s one thing to accept testimony from a person one knows, or some living person to whom one can speak. It’s something totally other to accept the writing of someone who claims to have been at a place and accurately reported it 2000 years ago. I’ve read Plato and found a lot of interesting things in his writings, none of which convince me Socrates was an actual person. He may well never have existed. And there’s more evidence HE existed than any for the existence of Jesus.
I amended my statement about Christians getting the God they want to reflect a more accurate idea: the idea of God presented in the scriptures MAKES SENSE to Christians. Lucky for you. What about those of us to whom it makes literally ZERO sense? I know it may have made no sense to many of you at one time, but at some point it did. I’m asking: WHAT IF there are some people to whom this idea will NEVER MAKE SENSE? Can you even contemplate an idea like that? What will happen to people like that?
A path only leads to a destination in the western worldview. For instance, in Buddhism the journey in considered more important than the destination. That’s usually how I look at it: I know I’m headed SOMEWHERE, but I usually think I’m headed to a place other than where I end up.
As far as this statement, though, I have more to say. “If you choose to follow a path that leads away from God, heaven, joy, etc., and that leads towards Hell, how is it God’s fault if Hell is where you ultimately arrive?” God made me. God made me as I am. If the path to heaven makes no sense to me, if it is something I can never grasp no matter how many times I hear it - well, if God made it all, then God put me on the path and allowed me to have a mind which would not allow me to deviate from the path. How is that NOT God’s fault?
God MAY care what we do to the other creations. As to whether God SHOULD care…I don’t think it should matter. Obviously many people disagree.
Hey Mike,
I’m amazed that you keep posting, and if it really is true what you said about only having the time to respond at work, then let me express my hope that this escapade doesn’t drive you to unemployment and homelessness. Although, unemployment and homelessness do seem to be great ways to do away with attachment… …I think I see the purpose of this discussion! I’ve exposed you, you closet Buddhist!
Anyway, I had two questions for clarification, and I know you’ll probably have to look way back in the archives for your response to Veith (#44, original post), but I’d like to ask:
I don’t understand how we can be imperfect and whatnot but still not be “sinners.” What really confuses me is that you use phrases that I would use to argue FOR original sin as you argue AGAINST original sin. For instance, you said “we can’t help but be imperfect” when in a Christian’s eyes, that’s precisely what makes him a sinner. There seems to be some disconnect between what we call original sin and what you’re calling imperfection.
Second thing is kind of related and in the same post, but you say that as imperfect individuals, “we place impossibly high standards on ourselves, and then get angry and feel like failures when we don’t achieve what we never would have been able to achieve in the first place.” As Christians, we would say that impossibly high standard would be righteousness, a perfect combination of all the virtues you could ever think of: faith, hope, love, humility, courage, etc. I don’t intend to argue that we can reach those, so we agree on this. BUT, my question is that even if they are ‘impossibly high expectations,’ aren’t they pretty good expectations? Is it really bad to shoot for the best possible showing of love, charity, faithfulness, patience, kindness, and all that?
These are kind of leading questions into something C.S. Lewis talks about at the beginning of Mere Christianity. Basically: we have these expectations, and everybody falls short of them. The expectations are almost always good things, and we all are imperfect in them, which leads to the Christian doctrine of imperfection, or not-goodness, or sin. If you have the time, I’d love to revisit “imperfection vs. sin” and “are impossible expectations bad expectations”?
BTW, the first paragraph was my first attempt at a Buddhist joke from information that I gleaned from tonight’s episode of “The Colbert Report.” I hope you got the joke (and thought it was funny) instead of thinking I was throwing a real accusation out.
Michael:
I would appreciate it if you would clarify your opinion about the propriety of God caring when we sin against other people. Maybe this is characteristic of western thought, but it seems the most natural thing in the world to me, and a very good thing, for any being to care about the welfare of other beings. In a biological sense, I have “created” my children. When someone harms one of them, it matters to me very greatly. This is sometimes still very appropriate, even if the injured party does not seem to care. Take, for example, the father of a woman who is being abused by her husband. The woman may tolerate the abuse and seem to forgive her abuser over and over again. But her father, if he were to know of it, would be very concerned about such a situation. So, if I believe that God, our Father, is very concerned when we His children abuse each other, I see this as a perfectly appropriate response on His part. I understand that you disagree, but I don’t understand why? If if one person has been harmed by another, why shouldn’t it matter to God? For that matter, why shouldn’t it matter to me?
Why did God talk plainly to people in the Bible, but no longer does. I suppose the short answer is because He has already said everything we need to know. I agree that the advent of Christ, and His death and resurection, were the central events to which the Old testiment pointed, and the testimony of the Gospels, and the exposition of the rest of the New Testiment was important to establish the Church on Earth. I don’t know what else we need to know that the Bible doesn’t tell us. There may also be a problem with our ability to understand the mechanics of some of God’s deeper mysteries. My mother used to give me the example of a cat watching her bake a cake. The cat can watch Mom make the cake 100 times. The cat can see and smell the cake, and even eat it. But the cat will NEVER understand how to make a cake or be able to make one himself. I fear we are in a similar position vis a vis God. There are some things He is able to do and understand that will always be beyond us.
When we talk about this, or other aspects of God as we perceive Him, you seem to me to bounce back and forth between not believing as we do, and NOT WANTING to believe as we do. For example, you think you should be able to ask God (if He exists) any question you want without offending Him. I suspect you can, if you exercise reasonably good manners when you do it. Remember, the tone of some people on this very blog has offended you when they expressed any old idea that rattled around in THEIR minds. I don’t think you should expect God to put up with wilful disrespect any more than you should yourself. But other than that, I don’t think God has any plans to strike you down for asking questions.
On the other hand, you characterize God as pompous for putting Himself above His creations. He should have made us all a lot more equal to Him and should treat us as equals? Creation should be a lot more democratic than it is? Well, I’m not sure that’s something we can do much about, is it? I also think we have kind of swerved back into original sin. Wanting to be like God was what got Satan cast out of Heaven and Adam and Eve cast out of Eden, wasn’t it? Which leads us to another question?
Are you really sure that your rejection of Christianity, and religion in general, is a product of your intellect and not your will? You say that our beliefs don’t make sense to you, but I think you also don’t like them. You don’t WANT Christianity to be true. This is a different problem, because frankly I think no religion can be proven conclusively. Without going into all the details, I do believe that there is enough supporting evidence for me to believe the Bible and the religion it generated. But I wonder whether you just don’t want any authority in your spiritual life. Like you think God and your Dad have too much in common or something.
Perhaps I’m out of line here. I don’t know you that well, and I have no business playing amateur psychologist. But from my limited point of view, it seems that way to me (at least a little).
So another question: you have said that no matter how many times you read/hear the arguments in favor of Christianity, they make no sense to you. Well, what would it take to convince you?
Oh yeah. You asked about my culture. I am an American. I think that there are many versions of Christianity that get their distinctive characteristics from American culture. I would say, without perhaps knowing as much as I should about it, that the Foursquare Church is one such denomination (founded by Aimee Semple McPherson right here in the good old US of A). I find Lutheran theology to have much more of a connection with Apostolic and historic Christian thought than the theologies of most denominations founded in America. Luther was an Augustinian monk before he was a reformer, after all. As much as I love my country, it’s not an eternal institution. The Church is.
Veith requested, “I’d like to hear more about the Christian belief that God is INCARNATE–not an abstraction far above and looking down, but that He came down from Heaven to suffer and die with us and for us.”
“The author of The End of Faith asked, “How is it fair for God to have designed a world which gives such ambiguous testimony to his existence? How is it fair to have created a system where belief is the crucial piece, rather than being a good person?”*** Christians often respond to the new atheists with answers from the Intelligent Design movement or from other developments of Thomas Aquinas’s “proofs” of God’s existence. By contrast, orthodox Christians of the first century, far from advancing philosophical arguments for the existence of God, maintained that those who deny his existence suppress the knowledge they already have of him from the things he created… Rather than displaying all his power, righteousness, and justice, thereby destroying the guilty human race, Christianity’s God sent his innocent Son in the form of a servant to gently reveal his love. This revelation reportedly came by means of Jesus’ testimony, his healing the blind and lame by word and touch, his proclaiming good news to the poor, his bearing on the cross the retribution due all people, and his appearances to his disciples after his resurrection.”
[ From http://www.absoluteparadox.com ]
Right belief comes from taking God at His word, believing that the Word He’s left us–the Bible–is a true and complete (enough) testimony of Him and of His will.
Right belief is leaving authority to the Word (the testimony) of God, and not to human or personal experience, or to additions to that Word, or subtractions from it.
For starters.
Jones @ 13,
No offense taken at all. Totally got your joke. I only post when all my work is done and we’re slow, anyway. But I appreciate the concern!
I agree there is a disconnect between what I call imperfection and what you call sin, but I couldn’t tell you what that disconnect is. I’ll try to clarify a bit, though. I think we both agree that humans do not do things perfectly. We make what we call “mistakes”. We hurt others, or do things others don’t like. Some of us murder, torture, berate and generally abuse others. (I just want to make clear that I don’t think humans are basically good or any other nonsense.) What I’m saying is I don’t believe there are consequences for those actions other than any number of things that may happen as a direct result of a said action(s). There is no additional punishment.
Part of the disconnect may come from the fact that I don’t believe we (humans) were ever capable of anything other than imperfect actions. Perfection may be an idea that comes from our observation of this fact, and our extrapolation from reality led us to think this aspect of ourselves must have an opposite. Simply because we can conceive of perfection in our brains doesn’t imply its existence in reality. Many people have thought and some continue to think that our ability to use our imagination is limited to what is real - i.e., we are not able to conceive of something which does not exist. This is obviously false (if it’s not, I’m quitting ALL my activities NOW and building my own lightsaber).
So I think the story of The Fall and original sin are not factual. We have heard them for so long that we can’t conceive of another reason we would commit the actions we do. As Paul said, we don’t always do what we want to do, and we often do exactly what we DON’T want to do. Why is this? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone knows. But humans like to “solve problems,” even if a given situation is not really a problem NEEDING a solution. Would it be better if we were perfect? I don’t know. It would solve the problem of being embarrassed when one does something for which one must apologize. It sounds really BORING to me, to tell you the truth. I have no desire to BE perfect. I tend to learn more from making mistakes than I do from getting things “right.” I think it’s fine that we don’t always do things “correctly.”
What does that even mean? What is doing something “correctly”? I think a lot of what we see as our own sin is actually just the messiness of life. It’s not simple. It’s not cut and dried. But it is easier when we can say “That guy over there is evil, and here’s WHY.” Most of it seems to boil down to what we like and don’t like. Is it a sin for a man not to wear clothes in public? NO. We were born naked. It seems for a good bit of human history we were only ever naked. Yet many people see the naked body as indecent. Is there a reasonable explanation for why this is the case? I haven’t heard one. Perhaps someone can provide one here.
So I don’t deny that what you call sin actually does occur; but if it is our nature to do so - not because of The Fall, but because perfection is an ideal, not a reality, and can never be achieved - we should not feel bad when we do not attain that for which we are reaching.
Which leads me to your second question, having to do with the impossibly high standards for conduct which we place upon ourselves: “even if they are ‘impossibly high expectations,’ aren’t they pretty good expectations? Is it really bad to shoot for the best possible showing of love, charity, faithfulness, patience, kindness, and all that?” My question back is, if we can’t achieve any of those things, how are they the best? When you ask someone to do their best in a given task, do you mean the absolute, ideal BEST OF WHICH COULD BE CONCEIVED? Or do you mean for that specific person to do his/her best? What IS best? What does that mean?
I think I should revise what I’ve said before. Impossibly high expectations - while I do think they can be a detriment to self-esteem and to having a reasonable understanding of one’s own abilities - are not the problem in themselves. The problem is an expectation that the unreal can become real. It is not, in fact, an impossibly high goal which is at issue; rather, it is a goal which is not achievable because it is not real. Perfection is not a real thing, but an ideal - i.e., a conception of something in its perfection, or, more aptly put, something that exists only in the imagination.
So I do not think one should lower one’s standards across the board. It can be beneficial at times to place the bar higher than one has in the past in order to challenge oneself. What I am saying is, perfection is not one of these instances, because it is not a real thing. Even if one does better than strive for one’s best, but achieves it, one will still miss the mark of perfection. One would have the same chances of achieving that goal as one would have of reaching Never-Neverland.
If you’d like to show me that perfection DOES exist - that it is a real thing, rather than an imagined one - be my guest. The burden of proof is on you, anyway, since you believe in perfection. I see no proof it exists at all.
Hey y’all!
Isn’t there mathematical and physical perfection which exists in reality?
1=1
1+1=2
4 milligrams = a wide variety of small things
1 inch does not equal a mile.
Without perfect equations trust breaks down.
What if my banker did not believe in equations, but only estimates? I would find a different banker.
Credo ut intelligam - Latin for, I believe in order that I might understand. Per Saint Augustine, Crede ut intelligas, believe in order that you may understand.
I have no intention to provoke you but I must state again that God requires faith in him. And by the way, it is wrong to interpret the lack of the need for Israel to have a King in the way that you did. God was their king as they were living under a theocracy. They sinfully demanded a king. And he is a good king not a tyrant. The particulars of debate are irrelevant unless you believe God for who he is. One can formulate arguments giving proofs but it is only by faith that you can know God. He ordained it to be this way. God does not answer to the whims of man on the matter. He has revealed himself in his word, in nature, and in your mind. And whether you will admit it or not, it remains to be seen. I cannot stress enough that to know God savingly is a matter of faith and not academics. Look to him and be saved. He saves all who will come to him.
How about also maps. Would you buy a map that had this disclosure on the key: This map is not a perfect representation of the land is surveys. 1 inch = something like 2 or 3 miles, whatever. Let the buyer beware.
What if a publisher didn’t aim for perfection at all. No proofreaders - or - rather “our prufridrs spl guud.”
The author writes a book about gooses.
Publisher, “We have made this nice jacket for the cover, but it has dogs on it that would look rather nice. Who cares about perfection?”
I wonder if they would have many authors use their services.
Perfection is all around us.
Its in the ground we walk on and in the air we breath.
When you go to the hospital would you rather they gave you some imperfect gas. Who’s to say what’s in the bottle? Or would you rather have their perfect declaration that they know they were giving you the right or perfect mixture of oxygen?
Words you don’t want to hear from your eye sugeon: “Oops, nobody’s perfect!”
Robert @ 19,
Once again, I’m answering out of order. But I think it’s worth noting that you’re wasting your time by continuing to reply in this manner. I am trying to understand the people on this blog. I am not trying to understand God or come to any sort of saving knowledge. I realize you might feel it your duty to say these things over and over again. So I just want you to know that I’ve heard you. You no longer need to repeat the stuff about academics vs. faith.
I must acknowledge that you’re correct in what you said about God telling Israel they didn’t need a HUMAN king because they had a more transcendent one in God. I thought you might still see MY point, even though I realized I was stretching it. I was wrong in that assumption. But if God is a King, and must constantly remind us of the fact, then God is, as I’ve said, not only a tyrant, but an insecure tyrant.
Bryan,
What you’re talking about is accuracy. How does that have anything to do with perfection?
I have not had the chance to read all the posts. Obviously I missed something. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
kerner @ 14,
A compassionate person does care about the well-being of others. Most of us only care about those close to us; but I agree it is a virtue to care about our fellow earthlings. It is not, however, very natural to care about anyone other than those in one’s “circle,” as one defines it. That’s why we have to have laws about it. It’s much more natural for survival instincts to take over and for one to do what one must for oneself and those in one’s immediate care, depending on what the situation requires.
You care for your children. Do you take sides when they are having an argument? I guess what I meant by God not really caring is not that God should have no CARE as to the well-being of God’s creations; rather, I’m trying to show that I am an individual and can take responsibility for myself and my actions. God might presumably care how I treat others, especially if God is the creator of all the creatures who exist. I just don’t think God must ACT on those feelings.
When your children are having an argument, you may step in to help them get to the bottom of things. But do you care what the outcome is, as long as your children are not hurt? You may want them to learn a lesson, which I understand. Is that caring about the outcome? While it’s fine for God to care about God’s creations, I am left to wonder what kind of a God would be invested in the interpersonal goings-on amongst those creations.
Of course a father would care that his daughter is being abused. But if his daughter is married, isn’t it safe to assume she’s an adult? At what point does she begin to take responsibility for herself? Her age is obviously not going to stop her father from caring about her; I just wonder whether it’s his place to DO anything about the problem. If she keeps going back to this horrible man, wouldn’t her father be interested in her learning the lesson that she shouldn’t? If he intervenes, what will she learn? It seems she will only learn not to worry. Eventually, daddy will make everything better.
As far as what we need to know that the Bible doesn’t tell us: that the earth revolves around the sun, NOT the reverse; that people DON’T return from the dead (and I’m not just referring to Jesus here, as his is not the only resurrection recorded therein); that men AND women participate genetically in procreation, NOT just men; that slavery is wrong. I could go on. As a person of Jewish descent I find your assertion that the whole of the First Testament is a prelude to Jesus more than a little disconcerting; but I’m sure you realize Jews don’t see things the way you do.
The cat’s brain developed under conditions that never necessitated the tools to bake a cake. Our brain did. Are you lower than a cat because you can’t jump five times your own height? Are cognitive abilities the only thing that makes a being higher or lower than another? How do you know the cat DOESN’T understand how to bake the cake? The cat wouldn’t be able to tell you even if it did because you don’t speak the same language. Also, a cat doesn’t have an opposable thumb, which would be the biggest roadblock to his/her making the cake. Your example doesn’t really show one being to be higher than the other; it just shows the ways in which humans and cats differ.
As far as not wanting to believe in God as you do: sure, I don’t. But I think there’s a huge difficulty in showing that my desire came first. I feel like I don’t want to believe in the God you believe in BECAUSE this idea makes no sense to me, rather than the reverse. I could make a similar argument for your wanting my beliefs to be influenced in this way, as that would back up the idea presented many times on this blog that I have rejected the knowledge of God which is innate of being God’s creation.
When I talk of wishing to ask God any question, I’m giving a hypothetical example based on YOUR terms. I don’t know how many times I have to say: I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD. All of the examples I give are hypothetical. I am saying, IF the God you talk about exists, here are the problems I have with God. But it’s based on how you frame things. I don’t want to believe in the God you believe in, because the idea strains credulity. Which is lucky for me, because it would take more than the power I have over my mind TO CHANGE IT. So I get to continue not believing in God.
I don’t recall being offended on this blog. I don’t get offended. I view taking offense as a choice. I spent my entire senior year of college being offended, because I was a non-Christian at a Christian college (I left the faith the summer between jr and sr years, so I decided to stay at Greenville College, as I would’ve had to go to school for a LOT longer if I left, and all my friends were there). I decided at the end of the year I would try to listen and learn from my emotions when I began to have feelings which had, in the past, led to my taking offense. It’s worked for me. Doesn’t mean I don’t call people out for being mean, nasty, or cruel.
Why wouldn’t I expect God to take my willful disrespect? Isn’t God perfect? A higher being than I am? Why does all this transcendence just mean God is greater than us and deserving of worship? I mean, with great power comes great responsibility, right? I would think God’s status as the highest being might make it incumbent upon God to DO a bit better than the rest of us. As you describe it, God’s being higher than us just affords God more people to worship at God’s feet.
God shouldn’t have made us more equal to God. That’s not what I’m saying. I just don’t think God is very benevolent for lording it over us. I don’t think creation should be democratic. But if a parent brought a child into the world and proceeded to treat the child as you say God treats us, well, let’s just say there would be social workers involved.
Yes, I am as sure as I can be that my rejection of religion came FIRST from my intellect. But my reasons for REMAINING outside religion continue to grow and change. I am not now who I was when I first left the church. As I said, I left religion because I had a thought that I couldn’t shake. Then, once I THOUGHT about it for a long time, I moved with my heart. I realized - BECAUSE of my faith in a God whom I discovered was actually BIGGER and more encompassing than I had previously thought - that I needed to follow the path in front of me. It was a path I then believed God had laid out for me. My travels since have led me away from this view; but it is where I began the journey.
It’s not that I don’t WANT Christianity to be true. It may be that’s what YOU want me to want. You’re a little out of line for saying the thing about my dad and God. Whatever, no big deal. It’s hard to play armchair psychologist on a blog, especially one that’s this biased against my views.
What it would take to convince me Christianity is true? The same thing as it took Thomas: I would want to SEE it.
Robert N. Landrum wrote:
‘The particulars of debate are irrelevant unless you believe God for who he is. One can formulate arguments giving proofs but it is only by faith that you can know God. He ordained it to be this way. God does not answer to the whims of man on the matter. ‘
Yet Michael, you tell him he’s apparently supposed to talk to the hand.
But what he said is completely true.
You say you’re trying to understand the people on this blog, but you can no more understand us, or tolerate our language and syntax, than you can understand God and His language.
We see absolutely *everything* differently from you; likewise, you see it all differently from us.
Speaking from belief and speaking from unbelief are simply opposite ways of speakign, because the words emanate from opposite poles of understanding. I liked kerner’s analogy of the cat observing the cake-maker at work: until that cat’s a human, he won’t get it. By the same token, until the cake-baker’s a cat, he’ll never understand the tastiness of mice. Just two different ways of seeing the very same world.
I hope you comprehend that: that we’re limited (apparently) in what understanding we can bring to you, because of that gap in what it is we understand, and through what eyes we see.
You see the world as a work in progress, and perhaps look for a way to push it along, or mankind, at least, or just yourself, for the sake of harmony and justice, etc.
We see the world as in decay, from the time of The Fall; some things get better, but mankind himself does not. Medical science is improved, and modes of transportation and communications; man is stronger, maybe, taller, smarter, more knowledgable, capable of more skills, etc., but not better, and no less arrogant than at the first moment of disobedience.
You may think God is an insecure tyrant, but not for any reason other than he doesn’t fit your notion of God.
So, perhaps you could say you do have a god after all, but he’s one of your own design–still just a god of your dreams–while ‘ours’ left us completely out of the design phase.
As to where God goes about constantly reminding us He’s the King: I don’t see where He does that. Indeed, He leaves us very much alone, or appears to. You’d be even more left alone by Him, if you were to forsake this blog. Yet, here you are.
I wonder if, again, it’s not your anger at Him, for not being the God Michael would have, but also because you think He’s asking of you that which you hate to surrender: your pride. I wonder if your pride is not your best friend. Pride in the way you’ve come to see things, due to your experiences, and pride in the way you’ve overcome things that were against you, and pride in your obvious mental and intellectual gifts as some sort of sustenance and shield.
And I wonder if you think we’ve all had to grovel to get to God, and that that’s maybe a shameful act to which you would not submit yourself. Not until God agrees to meet you halfway.
But, as my Pastor said on Sunday: God is not like us.
And then, there’s that whole thing about dying, where Your King–the one you’ve hoped for, who is fair, and broadminded, and ego-free–gets the last laugh, and all our struggle against Him was for nothing.
Tell me how your god would handle, say, a sinful or imperfect act by one of his creatures. Say murder or lying or brutality to others. What would be the perfect response of your god. And is he perfect in himself? What makes him perfect?
‘As a person of Jewish descent’
What claim do you have to anything jewish, if you ahve no god and no faith, especially the god of the Jews?
That was a pretty weak and cheap shot. And a little on the whiny side. It’s what they call ‘playing a card,’ and it’s what one does when one has nothing but one’s pride to back him up.
Of course Jews don’t see the New Testament like we do. Neither do the Muslims, the Mormons, or the atheists.
‘I just don’t think God is very benevolent for lording it over us.’
So how does this god you don’t believe in lord it over you?
Seems to me it’s the person who believes in God who has the legitimate gripe with God lording it over him, and not the person who doesn’t even believe in him.
See where I’m going with that, Michael? On the one hand, you deny that He’s real. On the other hand, you hate the way He is. And yet on the OTHER hand, you’d accept him if he were more this way or that. But back to that oringal hand, you don’t believe in Him anyway, but, somehow, it serves some purpose for you to dispute this God that doesn’t exist.
‘I don’t recall being offended on this blog. I don’t get offended.’ Your credibility has shrunk. Big time.
Re-read your own response to me on the former thread: #59. A snip:
‘This is devolving rapidly. I think I’ll say g’night, Susan. Feel free not to respond to me anymore.
Are any of you loving, compassionate Christians gonna let her get away with a response like this?’
There was lots more.
You mean I didn’t offend you after all?
But how can there be accuracy without some measure of perfection? Who cares about accuracy if there is no real perfection?
And again in mathematics there is such a thing as a perfect equation. I can mathematically compute and figure a lot of cool things out based on perfect triangles (even though I can’t draw one). The equations are accurate and we know we can apply our figures to real world situations in physics because they are perfect. They follow scientific laws and in fact can prove them.
Any mathematicians out there who don’t believe in perfection?
On a more serious note, death is an unfortunate byproduct of the exacting nature of perfection. We are unable to live up to reality crushing us on every side. The exacting nature of the cosmos upon life would leave everything to be cosmic dust without the merciful hand of God upon everything every day. That any living thing survives until tomorrow is a wonder me thinks, but even all those will painfully die away. No? Anybody experience dust coming to life lately? I’ve never seen or experienced that, but I do believe it happened - once or twice.
There is a frustration for the atheist, that life is simply what it is. Railing against that reality is all he’s got.
Life isn’t fair or even predictable; it’s interrupted by trouble and disaster; happiness comes and goes; justice is slow or absent altogether. Someone must pay for that, and that someone is a God who allows it, or, by extension (or, in His ‘absence’), the Christian who holds to such a God.
I’ve listened to Christopher Hitchens arguing the atheistic point of view against Christians. Hitchens is no mental or intellectual lightweight, but, in the beginning of his ‘argument’ and at its end, the string that binds is his disagreement with a God’s-eye view of justice, and the resentment that God is who He says He is.
In Hitchens’ mind, therefore, He cannot be.
The accusation that a Christian can’t possibly prove his God exists is just a weapon of last resort, since it’s apparent to the atheist that Christians do and will believe. And the atheist is just as helpless to disprove Him.
Don’t worry, Michael. Christians are just as likely to make up their own God: one who allows or excuses particular sins that some Christians find so irresistible, they *must* be okay, through some re-interpretaion of the scriptures. Even weak and errant Christians rely on the Bible to back up their whims and turn them from good to bad. The TV preacher who calls the money you send to him a ‘vow’–a show of faith towards future prosperity–bases his act on the Bible.
michael:
“What I’m saying is I don’t believe there are consequences for those actions other than any number of things that may happen as a direct result of a said action(s). There is no additional punishment.”
Lutheran christians would agree with this statement. no one will be punished by God for their behavior or actions. I hope this corrects what seems to be a misperception of christian teaching on your part…
“Part of the disconnect may come from the fact that I don’t believe we (humans) were ever capable of anything other than imperfect actions. Perfection may be an idea that comes from our observation of this fact”
When God finished creating the world in the creation story, he said that everything was “very good”. he did not say it was perfect. In fact in that very good world there was at least one thing that was NOT good. It was not good for man to be alone… So the perfection argument…. I am not sure exactly what to do with that. It may be a misdirect?
Also consider… if Jesus was truly God incarnate… did he forget his prayer shawl from time to time at home? did he forget his abcs? was he subject to the normal limitations of every human? would this mean that he was not “perfect”? I don´t know the answers to these things, but I think it is fun and worthwhile for me as a follower of Jesus to ponder them…. I guess I would suggest to you Michael that things are not so black and white as to what a christian could believe as you might think. I am guessing that the church group you belonged to liked to keep their theology black and white with nothing left dangling for the imagination. We Lutherans are cool with doubts and questioning at a pretty high level actually…..
I wonder, Michael: do you worry more about your own imperfection, or about the imperfection of others?
Do you consider yourself less imperfect than your father, or anyone else?
What do you think is the remedy for a person’s imperfection? What can a person do, to overcome an imperfect condition? Or can he?
So, I’m way behind on the debate going on here, and this is a little off the current topic, so please forgive me. I had noticed that Michael had trouble understanding how original sin makes any sense. It seemed like he and the others focused mostly on sin as in debts/transgressions, but I think a better metaphor for understanding original sin is slavery. As in the Exodus narrative, we are in slavery to sin. Unlike a debt or jail sentence, which is not normally passed from generation to generation, we can easily see that slavery is: we only need to look to the history of slavery in our own country for an example of this. Then, of course, Christ sets us free from our slavery to sin and brings us into the promised land.
I hope this is helpful.
FWw #29
“Lutheran christians would agree with this statement. no one will be punished by God for their behavior or actions. I hope this corrects what seems to be a misperception of christian teaching on your part…”
Is this really an accurate representation of Lutheran doctrine?
Michael the Little Boot,
“Why wouldn’t I expect God to take my willful disrespect? Isn’t God perfect? A higher being than I am? Why does all this transcendence just mean God is greater than us and deserving of worship? I mean, with great power comes great responsibility, right? I would think God’s status as the highest being might make it incumbent upon God to DO a bit better than the rest of us. As you describe it, God’s being higher than us just affords God more people to worship at God’s feet.
God shouldn’t have made us more equal to God. That’s not what I’m saying. I just don’t think God is very benevolent for lording it over us. I don’t think creation should be democratic. But if a parent brought a child into the world and proceeded to treat the child as you say God treats us, well, let’s just say there would be social workers involved.”
Of course, you are right, if God exists, he would have to be exactly as you and your social workers have determined to be perfect.
Quite frankly I think God has done a bit better than us, and has treated us quite well. Sending his son to die for us, to atone for our sins with his blood, so that he could forgive us, is a good deal more than I think I would be willing to do for us if I was in his place.
I realize that what you say about God is in the hypothetical of if he existed. However, everyonce in a while you write something that seems to be a hot mike moment, And you show that you are angry, very angry, at a person you don’t believe exists. At a person you want to believe doesn’t exist. Because if he did exist he is responsible for dealing you a bad hand?
you say God doesn’t make sense to you. That it is an illogical hypothesis. Well Michael, I don’t know how to put this to kindly, but maybe something is wrong with your logic? I mean if you can’t see the relationship between accurate and perfect, then…
Interestingly, Jim Pierce has his second part of his ‘confession’ as a former atheist up today.
http://lawandgospel.typepad.com/law_and_gospel/2008/07/confessions-of-a-former-atheist-part-2.html
Very good.
Good comment:
‘I learned to think of God as a tyrant who was more concerned with my sins and what works I would perform than with me! ‘
He claims it was his lack of knowledge of God’s saving grace–really, his lack of knowledge of who God really is–that drove him from what he’d thought was belief into unbelief, before he found ‘right belief’.
I wonder what a person who’s never been an athiest makes of Pierce’s piercing insight. It might be helpful for those among us who’ve never suffered atheism to read it as well.
Michael……
I would like to observe that you are apparently ardent in your belief, convinced of your position, a prolific writer, gifted intellectually, determined and spirited in debate, rising to the challenges as they are presented to you.
As an advocate of atheism, you argue, however that *if* God does in fact exist, you have some serious issues with Him personally, question the quality of His character, and especially find fault with His governance of the Universe in general.
After reading through this entire discourse, I see that you are, after all, in a profound wrestling match with God.
I believe that God will win.
Susan @ 30,
Out of order for the third time. I haven’t had time to do any responding today, but I have to go in twenty minutes and wanted to respond to what you wrote here.
I don’t worry about imperfection. I don’t worry about mine or others. I just accept it. I don’t think anyone can be more imperfect than anyone else, so, no, I am not more (or less) imperfect than others. Imperfection isn’t measured (by me, anyway) with tally marks based on how many “wrong” things one has done, or on some sort of sliding scale. It’s just a state of being. Everyone is imperfect; it has nothing to do with more or less.
I don’t think there is a remedy for imperfection. It’s the state we’re in. We’ll always have to apologize when we hurt someone’s feelings. We’ll always make fools of ourselves. I don’t feel a need to remedy imperfection. I think it’s a good state in which to find oneself. It keeps one humble.
Susan @ 25,
I never said anything like “talk to the hand” to Robert. I simply wanted him to understand that I heard what he said, that I don’t agree, and that he can stop posting the same thing over again. As to the truth of what he said, I think it’s debatable. I am a minority in the extreme on this blog, so I don’t expect a groundswell of support for ANYTHING I’m talking about.
I don’t see the world as a work in progress; rather, it just is. It grows and changes, but it does not progress. I realize I just used that word twice in two different contexts, but I think it fits here. I read a really interesting and horribly written book called I Don’t Believe In Atheists by Chris Hedges, and he makes a good case AGAINST human moral progress as a species. I feel that way, too: individuals may progress morally, but the species does not. If we did, slavery would actually be ABOLISHED in this world, as many of us in the west would like to THINK it was long ago.
The pride thing I don’t understand. Do you think you’ve gotten to know me well enough in this short time - and ONLY through my words - to speak this way? If I come off as proud, then I do. Maybe it’s just being confident in my ability to write halfway decently. I’m not saying “I’M THE MOST HUMBLE DUDE IN THE WORLD!” which would, of course, be the OPPOSITE of being humble. But I’m far from proud. If you knew me as a real person, you’d know this.
What do I have to be proud of? I’m a 32 year old library assistant who lives in a 569 sq. ft. apartment and drives a Kia Optima. I’ve not done anything special. I’m not proud of any growth in my life or in my beliefs. And I’m not very smart. If I were, I’d be doing a lot better answering people here.
Once again, it seems like you’re arguing with a caricature of me. I haven’t said anything like what you imply. I mean, you sound angry to me. Maybe I sound proud to you. But we’re just reading words. I don’t know what you’re getting out of accusing me rather than engaging my ideas.
Susan @ 28,
(Yeah, I’m answering most of Susan’s responses. All I have time for today and they’ve been weighing on my mind since this morning. Apologies, all. I will answer the others as I can, which means probably tomorrow.)
I find the frustration to which you’re referring more appropriately applied to theists than to atheists. To me, it is the atheist who accepts life as it is, and the theist who is doing the wishful thinking. Of course we disagree, but you just make the statement. That’s all you can do, because your statement is an emotive one, and cannot be backed up by anything.
I agree life is not fair or predictable; we have trouble and disaster; happiness comes and goes; justice is BARELY visible, if it even exists; I just don’t think anyone needs to pay for it. That would be justice, once again, about which I’ve said I’m beyond unsure. It is the unease which this causes that I find religion to be railing against. I think it is the religious person who doesn’t accept reality. I can give examples, but feel I would be wasting my breath. Correct me if I’m wrong about that, please.
I find that I’ve not done to anyone here what you, Susan, have done to me repeatedly - i.e., put words in my mouth, argue against a straw man rather than me. Why are you doing this? It makes no sense. Have I called you out or something? I know we don’t agree; but my way of disagreeing here is simply to state my disagreement, usually with as little emotive language as I can manage.
Why do you bring up Hitchens? Just as an example? I’m no fan of his, just so you know. He’s a great intellect, as you said. Just because he’s an atheist doesn’t mean all atheists agree with his views. If you’re trying to use this against me somehow, you’re arguing with the straw man again.
And where does THIS come from? “The accusation that a Christian can’t possibly prove his God exists is just a weapon of last resort, since it’s apparent to the atheist that Christians do and will believe. And the atheist is just as helpless to disprove Him.” Have I ever used this argument? No. The only time I even came close is when someone told me that atheists can’t disprove God, which any atheist worth his/her salt would admit outright from the get-go.
You speak of Christians justifying “sins” by a re-interpretation of the Bible. What else IS there but an interpretation? If there was a consensus, there would be no denominations to separate Christian from Christian. How is it you know your interpretation is correct? Is fw wrong in HIS interpretation that God MADE him a gay man? Is tODD wrong because he’s a liberal? I can understand Christians saying those who aren’t Christians are not okay; it’s this denominational stuff that gets me. You can’t even prove God inspired the Bible (which I’m not asking you to do). How do you even THINK your interpretation is absolute, let alone KNOW that it is?
And you call ME proud?
I’m not trying to neglect anyone here, but with my limited time and resources, I can’t get to everything in one day. There’s a lot for me to cover. Please be patient with me as I try to do right by as many of you as I can. I’ll try to catch up in the next couple days. Perhaps I can borrow my brother’s laptop this weekend…
I want to thank Susan for linking my essays “Confessions of a Former Atheist”.
Michael the little boot,
I am posting just to make a few comments. I hope you don’t take offense or mind my comments, since they aren’t personal and I don’t know your situation.
First, (and you’ve heard this before) God the Father loves you. He sent His only Son to suffer and die on a cross because of your sins and mine. He raised Jesus from the dead and God the Son went to hell and “ice skated” on Satan’s head in a victory dance over sin and death; setting us free from sin! O.k. I embellished the bit with the “ice skating”… but God seriously doesn’t want anyone of us to perish.
Secondly, there is no argument that is going to convince you that what I state above is true. It’s just a fact. You won’t be able to find God through rational thought. It is kind of like martial arts training… there is always somebody quicker, stronger, and smarter. Likewise, there is always a logical argument supplanting another… bigger, better, etc. That doesn’t mean we toss out reason, it just means that we have to understand the limitations of reason. Reason won’t bring us to a saving faith in God.
Third, there may be a time where you come to the “end of your rope”. I can tell you, Buddhism won’t remove the inner pain. Why do I say that? I, and many other atheists I knew, tried Buddhist thought with the hope we could “center” ourselves and remove the burden of sin in our lives. I am not saying that you are a Buddhist, btw. I am just catching some Buddhist thought in some of the things you write above. It may not be a conscience effort on your part. Needless to say, the burden of sin remains because God built His law into our hearts. We can’t run from it no more than we can run from ourselves. Try as we may… the saying is true… no matter where we go, there we are! Sorry… I am cringing at the cliche, too!
Finally, the fact that you are here shows God is talking to you. Sure, you can say anything you want about why you think you are on a Lutheran blog talking about an object you say doesn’t exist; but the reality of the situation is that God is talking to you through His word and that is why you are here.
When I was an atheist, Michael; at times I would cry myself to sleep because the burden of sin was so great. I would never admit it though. But God had His mind already made up and saw fit to breathe into me a gift of faith. I could have turned God down at that point, but when I realized what was happening all I could do was receive His grace and mercy!
If you ever have questions for me Michael, contact me through my bio on my blog. I don’t post my email address because webcrawlers will get it and the spam will start rolling in!
Jim Pierce
Just want to clarify: The word “Pride” has been used a few times and I want to make sure that you understand that I am not trying to put down on you but am using the term only in an effort to categorize what it is that prevents an atheist from believing. There are other words but all such words are offensive in their very nature. There is no easy way to tell anyone that they are a sinner in need of a savior. But such is the way of God. So I guess what I am saying is that when it comes to describing why people don’t believe, the offence is in the Gospel, not the preacher. “Repent” of “unbelief” “pride” “atheism” or whatever, is what God requires. Can I ask a few questions: You say you “are not trying to understand God” then what exactly is the topic about? Why bother even if you don’t care to understand God? Christ proved beyond any shadow of doubt that he was and is God incarnate yet not all believed, even those that were eyewitness did not all believe. So what makes the modern-day atheist any different? Are we really to think that it is just a matter of God revealing himself? Please! And what did you mean in your testimony when you said something about wondering if or can God’s people or the church accept you? How can God’s people accept you when God himself will not? We can and do love atheists, but while in unbelief the atheist remains the enemy of God.
Michael:
I know I keep returning to this, but your position about God acting on His concern for His creation fascinates me. And I don’t think I completely understand you, even though you spent four paragraphs on it.
Let’s start with caring about the actions and harm caused by or to people outside our own circle. While it is true that I find it hard for me to truely grieve for the suffering of people far away in the same way I would if one of my family and friends were harmed, on some level I believe that I have an obligation to care about that suffering and act to prevent it in some practical way. The entire concept of law is society acting on that perceived obligation. It is one thing to want one’s own person and possessions to be safe, but you only need force, not the law, to protect your own. The concept of laws, especially criminal laws, is that EVERYBODY’S persons and possessions should be secure. Sure I care more, in an emotional sense, if a member of my family is a victim of violence or dishonesty. But the reason we have laws against violence and dishonesty is because we, as a society, want to protect everybody. This is why a criminal charge is brought by the State, or “The People” against the defendant. And this is why the State can (and often does) continue to prosecute a criminal even though the victim wants to drop the charges. Just as an example, Michael, if you were to see me steal a stranger’s car, wouldn’t you call the police? Or would you think that calling the police would be butting into the “interpersonal goings-on” between me and the car owner?
But there is more I don’t understand. You indicate that it is ok for God to care about the harm and suffering between his creations, but you don’t think God should ACT on those feelings. What are you talking about? How does God (as we Christians conceive Him) act on his feelings of concern in a way that you find so inappropriate?
You also say that you are an individual and can take responsibility for yourself and your own actions. So what’s your point?
Also, remember that God DOES know us all personally, so we are all in His personal circle.
You also indicate that God is treating His creation badly. You say that God being higher than us just affords God more people to worship at His feet, and that if a parent treated his child the way I say God treats us, there would be social workers involved. Well, let’s review.
What I say God did was that He created the human race and gave us paradise to live in. When we (as a species) ruined that arrangement, I say He gave us a place to live where we could at least survive in the temporal sense, and from which we could return to Him. He then became one of us so we could be as brothers as well as think of Him as a Father. While He was among us He did menial tasks on behalf of those He came into local contact with, such as living a humble life and washing the disciples’ feet. Finally, I say this God you find to be so arrogant and pompous and in need of a social worker allowed a bunch of us to insult Him, beat and spit on Him, and at last torture Him to death. All this time He said things like “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”, and “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto the, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Boy, better call the protective services hotline quickly.
I realize that all this talk of what God is like is hypothetical to you. I get your story that you first came to the conclusion that God could be understood as different from the way Christians (or your narrow concept of Christianity) conceived Him to be. Then you later decided that your new found concept of God couldn’t be supported and you decided that there was no God. But this is why I wonder whether your disbelief is a product of your will. You started your journey away from Christianity with “I don’t like the Christian God” and progressed (or regressed from our point of view) to “there is no God at all”.
So, you would have to “see” Christianity, like Thomas? Meaning Jesus would have to appear to you wounds gaping and blood flowing before you would believe again? I wonder whether that would really do it for you. Jesus told the story about Lazarus in hell wanting to go back to earth and warn his brothers about eternity away from God, but he was told that if his brothers wouldn’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they wouldn’t listen to their resurected brother either. I suspect there is truth in that in your case as well. Even if Jesus struck you blind on the road to Damascus, you would still have your problems with Him. Even if He came back so you could see Him, would you let that fact overcome your problems? You’ve let your heart harden against God. Maybe Another @35 is right and God will win, but He’ll have to soften that heart up to do it.
What if you DO see Jesus, in person and up close, and He turns out to be exactly as we’ve described?
Knowing an atheist and knowing their perspectives and emotions is useful. That helps us to love them and treat them with compassion. In that vein I think this discussion is very useful.
The intellectual side of it is probably futile. I don’t think a sincere atheist and a sincere theist share any meanings in common. The atheist worldviews don’t possess some of the categories for the Christian worldview to be understood.
Susan,
@ 16 you mention “Right belief is leaving authority to the Word (the testimony) of God, and not to human or personal experience, or to additions to that Word, or subtractions from it.” So I wonder why you haven’t answered my questions about this idea. First, what is it about the Bible that makes it more credible to you as the word of God rather than all the other books which also make this claim? And second, what about the fact that Martin Luther himself subtracted from the Bible when he removed the Apocrypha from the usual order and put it in its own separate section?
I’ve noticed a lot of people referring to the Bible’s “internal consistency” as a reason for its validity. Can someone give me a clue as to why this is? A work of literature must be internally consistent. We expect this as sophisticated modern readers. But a work of history only needs to report what happened, which is rarely what we would define as “internally consistent” by these standards. Someone mind explaining this to me?
Susan @ 26,
I wasn’t playing a card. It is a common tactic of one group which is using the literature of another group to talk of “playing a card” when the former group has no other excuse to make to the latter. One community can’t just appropriate the book of another community, even if it happened so long ago neither group includes any members who were alive at the time. Jews don’t call Christians on this enough, in my opinion.
And it is perfectly fine for a non-religious Jew to do what I’m doing here. Non-religious Jews are accepted as part of the Jewish community by most Jews, because the Jewish people were a community before Judaism became a faith or religion. This is difficult for Christians to understand, because if a person who is a part of the Christian community ceases to believe things seen by others as essential to Christianity, that community rejects said member. Jews rarely do this.
I find it funny that - while I was raised in the church but have only set foot in a Jewish Temple a few times - I am more accepted as a Jew than I am as a Christian. Though I do understand why I am not accepted. But it’s pretty funny to me.
Susan,
And, no, you didn’t offend me. I said “g’night” because I thought it was just turning into a back-and-forth. I didn’t think you were listening, so I thought I wouldn’t waste my time. I said the stuff about “compassionate Christians” because NO ONE here agrees with me, but EVERYONE ELSE still engages my ideas, rather than the aforementioned caricature to which you have been referring.
I continue to respond to you because I’d still like us to get past what we’re doing, you and I, and listen to one another. As you can tell, I don’t give up easily.
FW @ 29,
If Lutheran Christians do not believe anyone will be punished by God for their behavior or actions, why the need for me to believe prior to death? As many have pointed out, Christianity doesn’t make your life better (i.e., you don’t have more money or happiness, you don’t suffer less, etc.). I’m lost here - once again, no pun intended! I’m not talking about legalism, just trying to discover the benefits. They sound very abstract to me at this point, especially since there doesn’t seem to be a consensus opinion here. Even your fellow Lutherans can’t seem to agree. If I won’t be punished for my actions, does this include a lack of faith? Once again, not trying to pin you (or anyone, for that matter) down, just trying to understand. You are quite right in pointing out that your description of Christianity doesn’t square with how it was presented to me growing up. My misperception is obvious; however, I need more information in order to correct it.
As far as perfection goes, I thought we were only discussing God’s perfection. I’m not sure where you’re going with your approach. I’m always asking for MORE from you! You LOVE to tease, don’t you?
I like how you’re asking questions about perfection, though. What are we talking about when we use this term? You ask whether forgetting a prayer shawl, etc., is considered imperfect. A subtle, but important, distinction. I think it is an example of an imperfection that doesn’t matter much, spiritually. It definitely matters for the person who has to march all the way back home because of a forgotten prayer shawl!
The church in which I was raised was DEFINITELY one of the more black and white churches, yes. I do see that there is room in Christianity for more than just that; I’m just not feeling it from what’s been said by many here. Can Christians be cool with a high level of doubt, but not the HIGHEST level (as far as theism is concerned) which would be agnosticism or weak atheism? Still only trying to understand.
Unmei @ 31,
Interesting way to look at it. I have many questions, as you may have anticipated! If one is looking at sin as slavery, rather than as a debt or transgression, who would be considered the slave master? If it is God, why cannot God let us go without OUR having to DO anything (including having faith or believing)? If the master is ourselves, that’s a different story, and brings up many more questions. But I’d like to know more about your idea before I proceed to ask those questions, especially if they’re totally off base!
A big question for me is: if Adam and Eve essentially CHOSE slavery, why can we not choose to leave it without having to choose Jesus? Why are we still slaves just based on their choice? This doesn’t totally line up with the tradition of slavery. For example, in the U.S., slaves from Africa didn’t choose slavery. They were released once their captors decided to do it. It seems this leaves the ball in God’s court. What do you think?
I have an idea related to your last post, Michael. For some really challenging theological reading which can perhaps help you understand the heart of Lutheran theology, read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” available here. Here you will hear from Luther himself our understanding of human spiritual slavery:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/bondage/
Let me know if you think you’ll actually read it. Perhaps I’ll reread it with you.
Bryan,
Is “Bondage of the Will” in the Concord? I just got that from the library, but it’s at home so I can’t check it. If not, I will read it, but it will take me a while, because of my oft-mentioned computer issues.
Michael @50:
This is Lutheran theology, and it is different than the decision theology you grew up with. But we believe you DON’T have to do anything. Unlike Baptists and Foursquare Christians, we don’t tell our children they have to make some kind of decision. We tell them their sins are forgiven because Christ died for their sins. A person does not have to “decide” for Christ, but that same person CAN decide against Christ. To follow the slavery analogy, it is as though the Union soldiers come to the plantation and announce, “All you slaves are now free!” And some of them believe it and lay down their tools and leave the plantation. But others don’t believe it and keep right on chopping cotton as they always have. Some of these latter are very stubborn about it and absolutely refuse to stop working no matter how many times they are told they are free. They demand proof, and no proof ever seems good enough to them.
I suppose there are even some who claim to have already lived in the free country, but didn’t like it and later denied that freedom actually exists. These eventually went to the plantation and voluntarily enslaved themselves. This baffles the Union troops who keep on announcing that the slaves are free, even to those who have enslaved themselves so securely that they don’t see that they have forged their own chains and claim to be happy in them. “We don’t believe in slavery or freedom”, they say, “Freedom makes no sense to us’, but chopping cotton in chains does make sense to us, so we’ll just keep doing that”. And so it goes.
It is not in the Book of Concord, but you may be able to find it in the Library. It is in the American Edition of Luther’s Works. I’m sure its been published numerous times. Let me know if you can’t find it at your Library.
I’ll reread it too.
Bror @ 33,
I’m glad you brought up God sending Jesus again in this context, because it brings up something I’ve been meaning to ask, but have been so overwhelmed by the volume of replies that I’ve continually forgotten: why is it God waited so long AFTER The Fall to offer a solution? That is, why didn’t Jesus come IMMEDIATELY after The Fall? How did God do “a bit better than us,” and how has God “treated us quite well,” if God let so many generations of humans come and go before he sent Jesus?
Interesting that you find you wouldn’t be a very good or nice God. I know this will seem the height of hubris, but I would have no problem accepting AND “saving” ALL of my creations, were I God. Regardless of what they did, if they agreed or disagreed with me, etc. And I’m a godless heathen! Why is it difficult for you to have compassion for others, so much so that you can’t even conceive of being as “good” as the God of the Bible?
You mentioned you have children. Do you play favorites with them? A good God, in my opinion, would be like a good parent. Whereas a good parent tries his/her best to treat his/her children equally, it would stand to reason a perfect God would be capable of treating all parts of Creation with perfect equality.
Love the “hot mike” pun, intentional or not! I am not angry with God. I have VERY strong words about the God described by many here, but have very little doubt THAT God does not exist. If I sound angry, it is probably more to do with DESCRIPTIONS of God than any actual God, in whom I do not believe; however, if the God described by many - here and elsewhere - actually DOES exist, I am angry, and, I think, justifiably so. I KNOW you don’t agree. This answer may, in your mind, justify your description of me as angry. I think the important distinction is that I really really DO NOT believe in any God - this God, Allah, Krishna, etc. So my anger is nonexistent. But I do find the way many describe God here to be a pretty archaic, barbaric way of viewing things. I actually see it as pretty depressing, which is usually how theists see atheists.
I don’t feel God dealt me a bad hand, as you say. My problems with the God you describe is that “He” is capricious; doesn’t abide by “His” own laws; doesn’t give straight answers to questions “He” deems to be of the utmost importance (I actually can’t wait to read what Luther has to say about this in the Concord as well as Bondage of the Will). There are a lot more. But the point is, it is with the IDEA that I take issue, not the person - which makes sense, since I don’t believe there TO BE a person.
I never said God was an illogical hypothesis. The idea of God (mostly the idea of a personal God) makes no sense TO ME. Just me. I am totally willing to admit my logic may have problems. I find that your seeing accuracy and perfection as being linked calls your logic into question. Accurate means “best measurement”; best does not mean “perfect.”
kerner @ 53,
Why can’t the Union troops just bring the bloody documents to the slaves and SHOW them they are free? Why does it all have to be so hidden?
I’m willing to admit this is different than the “decision theology” with which I was raised. It obviously is, but it’s so convoluted. Can someone show me HOW it is different? Because it just seems like a paradox I’m supposed to accept and live with.
Michael:
Oy! The Union troops HAVE shown up with the “bloody documents”. But the slave has read them and doesn’t believe them. They’ve showed up with water to wash off the dirt of all that slave labor, but the slave sees no difference and doesn’t believe that either.
Before we get lost in the details of this analogy, you said something @55 I would like to explore. You said, “if the God described by many-here and elsewhere-actually DOES exist, then I am angry, and, I think, justifiably so.” And, “I do find the way many describe God here to be a pretty archaic, barbaric way of viewing things.”
I don’t see the precise nature of your complaints against the God we describe. I mean, I described Him @42 and you haven’t responded by telling me what is offensive about that yet, but to use some more of your language @55: HOW is God capricious? HOW do you figure that He doesn’t abide by His own laws? Give me some examples of God not giving straight anwsers to important questions?
I understand your disclaimer. You don’t believe in God. But what, specifically, is so offensive about God as “we” describe Him?
kerner,
I’m sorry. I haven’t answered your reply @ 42 yet because I haven’t gotten there. I’ve answered a couple out of order, but I’m still trying to get to the rest MOSTLY in order. If you can be patient, I’ll get there as soon as I can. Fridays tend to be slow, so tomorrow there may be a flurry of posts…
Another Kerner @ 35,
I would like to thank you for your nice description of me.
If I am in a wrestling match with God, cool. If God thinks in terms of winners and losers, I’m sure God will win, if God exists. I mean, God wouldn’t be much of a God if I could take God down in a fight.
Jim @ 40,
I haven’t read your “Confessions” yet. If you’ve read a lot of this, you know of my computer problem (i.e., I ain’t got one!). I’ve got the first part of it up and will begin to read as soon as I have the chance. Then, if I have comments or questions, you’ll get ‘em!
I don’t take offense to anything you said. I do wonder why people keep saying things which they preface with “you’ve heard this before” though. If you know that, why don’t you find a way to say it which I HAVEN’T heard before? I don’t doubt the creative abilities of the people here. Maybe God brought all of you into my life so I could hear anew through you! So let’s have it, yes? Could someone rephrase this stuff in a way I might be able to hear it? I’ll really try to be as open as possible.
I won’t be able to find God through rational thought. Why? Why is God not able to present Godself in as many ways as it takes to convince EVERYONE? I made an observation to a co-worker today about the communication skills of modern youth. They have a really hard time rephrasing things when you ask for clarification. But this is not a problem for older people. I would think God could describe things in more ways than we’d even be able to understand. Why can’t God give me ONE way that makes sense to me? If God is a personal God, once again, why the one-size-fits-all answer? Why not…PERSONALIZE IT?
I come to the end of my rope all the time. Nothing helps me then other than taking a deep breath and pushing on. I’m no Buddhist, although you rightly point out its philosophies enter my vocabulary now and again. I was very interested in it in college. But it’s got its dogma, as do all religions. And I don’t like dogma I can’t get rid of once I recognize it. And I feel no burden from sin. I actually LIKE not being perfect. Takes all kinds, I guess.
I’m on a Lutheran blog because I found it in a web search. There were some interesting comments, so I stayed. I left for a while, too, because of a former bit of posting like this. I told my story because Dr. Veith asked. I’m talking about God because others are talking about God, as is wont to happen on a Lutheran blog.
I’m really sorry you had so much darkness in your life that you would cry yourself to sleep. Sometimes this happens. I find it too bad that you left reason behind in your quest to stop crying. Perhaps you thought something was amiss, and that was why you were crying. I find that I cry sometimes. When I’m done feeling that way, I stop crying. I don’t cry myself to sleep; but if I did, and it went on for a long time, and I NEEDED it to stop - you know, I guess I may have taken the option you did, as well. Cross that bridge if I come to it, as they say.
Thanks, Jim!
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your response. I encourage you to read my “Confessions as a Former Atheist”. I hope you don’t mind, but I don’t really engage in argument about what God can/can’t do, etc. All I can do is tell you about Christ crucified for your sins.
I notice perhaps a possible flaw in how many atheists see God’s omnipotence.
They say “Why didn’t God make his message convincing for everyone?”
I see an implicit assumption in there. It’s that saving us is God’s highest priority and everything else must bend so we are saved. The Bible indicates this may not be so. There may be higher priorities to God than our salvation. In any meaningful Universe there are choices, even for God.
While we can only speculate on why God allows some to perish, Christians believe that this is done for good reasons and not capriciously.
Evermore remaking God into his own image.
It’s the atheist who is capricious and inconsistent, even with himself, let alone with all the other realms of thought and reason.
So, his God has to be of the same make and model and manner of thinking and doing, as himself. Even his Un-God.
And I still wonder how it is that a God who doesn’t exist is ‘lording it over’ the creation He did not make.
Jim,
Interesting side-step. I said a lot of things that weren’t about God, and asked some questions, too. Why do you choose not to answer those?
Michael, you might learn to better construct your responses to why and in what manner people choose to engage you or anyone else.
Calling Jim Pierce’s answer a ’side-step’ was not the best construction you could’ve made, and it certainly didn’t mirror the manners with which he addressed you. Besides, he’d already invited you to further discussion via his blog, apart from here. Maybe you’d missed that.
You wrote:
if Adam and Eve essentially CHOSE slavery, why can we not choose to leave it without having to choose Jesus? Why are we still slaves just based on their choice?
We are also enslaved by our own choices, apart from what they chose. We have not improved our ability to not sin; we have not become more perfect, since that first sin. So, whether you regard original sin as at all plausible or credible, surely you can acknowledge that mankind is still incapable of any and all sins, from lying to killing and all things in between. It makes no difference how hard we try; at some point, we’ll feel compelled to do what we know is wrong, usually because it suits our self-interest.
Whoops.
Mankind is most surely still CAPABLE of any and all sins.
(And errors.)
Robert @ 41,
I don’t think you’re using the word pride to put me down. And I wasn’t trying to tell you to “talk to the hand” before, as it was phrased. Just trying to let you know gently that I heard your admonition, and that you needn’t say it again. Apologies if I was harsh.
I really wish we could ALL get past the fact that we have differences. I’d like to understand - as much as an atheist can - your perspectives on the issues we’re discussing. You can continue to tell me WHY I’m an atheist if you want; you have to know I’m going to disagree with said reasons, and that they are not conducive to a discussion. These are just accusatory remarks, and they make me wonder how many people here are interested in discussing rather than providing proofs or retorts.
Of course there is no easy way to tell someone they are a sinner. Why are you doing it? You have to realize I know this is your perspective. My parents always bring it up, and in this same context, even though I heard it every sunday from the time I was three until I was just over twenty. At least try a different tactic, if your goal is trying to get me back in church. Do you honestly think repeating the “you’re a proud sinner who doesn’t want to shame himself into believing” mantra is going to accomplish anything?
As far as what I’m doing here if I’m not trying to understand God: Dr. Veith just asked me to tell my story. I thought we were going to share a bit. I’m here to try my best at understanding as many of you as possible. I’m guessing by your answers you think that an impossible task. I obviously think it’s possible, however limited that understanding will be.
How did Christ “prove beyond any shadow of doubt that he was and is God incarnate”? I can understand if there were eyewitnesses - if what you’re saying occured actually happened - that you should be skeptical as to why THEY didn’t believe. But you CAN understand why people wouldn’t believe a written testimony, even four of them, right? Haven’t you ever heard the statement “don’t believe everything you read”? Does that apply to everything BUT the Bible?
The modern atheist is different in that he/she WASN’T there, DIDN’T see, and is NOT convinced by written testimony. Neither was Thomas, and Jesus did HIM the courtesy of giving actual physical proof. Not so the rest of us who bear the title which reflects its lineage: Doubting Thomas.
Why does God not accept me? You’re confusing me now. I can’t understand Lutheran theology if you guys won’t be consistent! How am I God’s enemy? And wasn’t it God who told us to LOVE OUR ENEMIES? Here’s one of those examples of God not following God’s own proclamation. And, yes, if God revealed Godself in a way we could understand it, atheists wouldn’t be atheists. Except we don’t believe there is a God, so we don’t think it’s gonna happen; but IF there is a God, yeah, it’s about revelation.
It’s a major cop-out to “love the sinner and hate the sin,” btw. I don’t see Jesus doing that in the Gospels. His love is total. Does he condemn things with which he doesn’t agree? Of course. But he doesn’t play semantics. What you’re doing is skirting the issue. You DON’T love the atheist, but you have to SAY you do or you wouldn’t be much of a Christian.
Per your address of slavery:
>This doesn’t totally line up with the