The question of heaven has perplexed scholars for centuries. Here's what some of them say and what I believe about it.
When writing about heaven, the writers of the Bible were using language to describe something wonderful, something so wonderful that it is beyond language's ability to describe. So they spoke about heaven in metaphors. Streets of gold, gates of pearl, etc. That is not to say that heaven doesn't have those things. It might, and if that is your idea of heaven, then it's just as valid as the next person's. The point of talking about heaven in the Bible was that it was a wonderful place beyond what we can understand here. It's a matter of faith in God. The rock bottom truth is that we can't reason about things that are infinite. We are finite creatures. God is infinite. Despite our vain attempts to impose our reason and logic on Him, God remains beyond our ability to understand. We are limited by our physicality. And no one on this earth -- except for Jesus -- ever has understood heaven or God. We simply can't.
Does that mean God wants us to dumbly follow him? To stifle our reason? To be unquestioning? Of course not! He gave us the gifts of intellect and curiosity. He wants us to strive to be better, to grow in our understanding. He is a proud parent and He rejoices in our accomplishments. But we have to understand that we will always be children in His sight. For all our understanding and knowledge, we will never really begin to grasp His infinite glory and majesty.
Until we reach heaven. Then hidden things will become clear to us. Our minds will open up and we will finally understand the universe and all the questions that perplex us will be answered. God's plan for the universe will be revealed. The Bible says we will sing at that point. We will rejoice. We will shout with gladness. God's plan is joyous beyond measure, and we will finally understand.
The point of all this is that we cannot reason our way to God. There is no logical path to God. He is beyond human logic. It comes down to this: Faith is all we have. If we do not have that rock bottom certainty that God exists and loves us, then all the words and discussions and talks and emotions won't get us to him. So how does one get that rock bottom certainty?
First, we cannot get it from our parents, our family, our friends, our minister, our books or any earthly thing. We cannot reach God by having someone else carry us. All those people can help us grow, but learning to have faith, that rests on our shoulders alone. We will stand before God and give account of our lives. It won't matter what our excuses are or who we want to blame for our transgressions; we will have to give an accounting for our lives. So we must accept the responsibility for our relationship with God.
Second, we must pray daily. This is hard to do. In our busy lives, who has time? But 15 minutes of prayer a day will do wonders for any one's faith. But how can we pray if we doubt God's existence? Easy. Simply tell God that we doubt He exists. Express our concerns. Talk to Him. The simple fact is that God's existence is not conditional on our belief. Men like to think that it does. We've made up so many gods over the years -- Odin, Zeus, Abana, Baal, Set, Osiris, Gaia -- why should this God be any different? Except ... this God does exist. Think of it this way: Say for whatever reason we decide the moon doesn't exist. We don't believe in the moon. It's stupid and illogical to believe in the moon. We write books saying the moon doesn't exist. Yet, when we step outside, the moon continues to orbit the earth. Our belief didn't change the universe. The moon exists whether we choose to believe in it or not. So God can handle whatever we throw at Him. It's not like He hasn't heard it before.
Third, we must read the Bible daily. And turn off our critical editor. For one thing, unless we can read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, we have to understand that we're reading a translation that for most part was written several centuries ago by people foreign enough to our times to be aliens. There are going to be things in there that we won't understand at first because the culture was different. We need to read it for the point. We need to not become clogged down in the non-essentials as small-minded and vain people do and focus on what's important. When we do that, the central truths of the Bible become clear: God loves us, He sent His Son to die for our sins, we need to accept Jesus as our personal savior to be with God again, there is evil in the world and we are to stand against it, we're supposed to be wise and forgiving, we're supposed to be honest and happy, we need to feed the poor and help the sick, we need to make the world a better place, we're God's children and He expects us to behave in a manner that He can be proud of us, death is not the end of our relationship with God because He loves us so much that He has provided a way so that we can be with Him forever, etc.
Doubtless I've left something out, but prayerful study of the Bible and other learned texts can enrich any one's understanding of heaven and God's plan for our lives.
Anyway, that's what I think about heaven and faith. What do you think?
97 comments:
Actually it sounds like what I believe. I'm not too good about the reading once a day but do try to spend time talking (praying) to god often, not for a set time but when ever I can even if it is a short thanks for the sun or moisture or whatever
Roen.
Talking to him is good thing, Roen.
It always surprises -- and dismays -- me that when I discuss religious matters, comments are few. I don't know why that is. It's almost like people are shamed by their beliefs. Or perhaps I simply overwhelm them with my writing ... But for some reason, I doubt the latter!
I think sometimes people are nervous about examining/rejoicing (in) what they believe. They parrot "I believe in God and Jesus," but they don't want to delve any deeper because, frankly, that well is pretty deep. I know that pride is one of my failings. When I start delving into what I believe, I start to worry about "total submission to God's will." I'm afraid of it, but I think in my deepest soul that it's really pride that's going to keep me from total submission to God's will and it worries me. Will I be left behind because I was too proud to bend my knees?
Anyway, to answer your question, I think heaven could be similar to what you describe. It will be wonderful beyond our wildest imaginings and it may be different for different people. I pray small prayers--giving thanks for things--throughout the day. I don't read the Bible as much as I should, but when I do, it's really amazing. I try to remind myself to be humble. I pray for it.
I think, you are dead on with that email. And if you don't mind, I'd like to "parrot" that to someone.
It's a hard thing to explain absolute Faith. And the story and exact place in the Bible eludes me at the moment, but the man who wanted complete truth and wisdom in all things turned out to be the loneliest man and so tried to find fullness in empty pleasures? He knew of Everything and so it left him with no hope or desire to seek. I believe God wants us to seek Him. To know more, to be better and to serve with that in mind. Without a goal, how can we achieve?
Thanks Tech. Great post. :)
A minister at my church once said that he believed in the streets of gold and gates of pearl because God wanted to show how little He thought of what we consider precious down here. He uses our earthly wealth as building materials. The minister said that it would be what was in heaven that was important, not what it was made of. I thought there was a lot of wisdom in that.
Good post. I think we're all going to be surprised by what we see.
Woo hoo. Thanks for the plug. :-) But there's no link! Harrumph!
Heaven: close relationship with God, in some unfathomable way.
Hell: apartness from God.
That's what I think.
I don't adhere as closely to the notion of me-standing-alone-before-God idea of judgment as I used to. The medieval church more or less taught that entire families, and even wider communities, *were* saved by the faith of one or a few. That doedn't mean that one can hitch a ride on another's faith. I just believe that anyone who wants a relationship with the Creator *has* one, whether or not he-she is as aware of it as others are -- and, I beleive that, as members of the Body of Christ, singular, some of us are stronger than others. Just like my four strong toes on my left foot carries my weak pinky toe; they're all toes. :-)
That whole me-alone-before-God kind of judgment, I think, is as much a product of individualistic Western culture as anything. IMHO.
I'm just dang near a universalist, but not quite because I do think common sense requires that we let people who systematically, repeatedly and selfishly reject any notion of God and Grace go their own way.
But then, there's this (and I realize there is an opposing view with Scriptures to back it, as well):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Universal_reconciliation#
Bible_verses_used_to_support_
universal_reconciliation
Interesting, Rowan, the idea of different heavens for different people.
Michelle, of course you can parrot it. :)
That's an excellent sermon, Gloria.
FF, probably we will be.
ER, and when was the last time you plugged my blog or linked me? :) I'm curious as to what you think judgment after death will be or if you think there will be one. I, of course, do think there will be one, and also believe that learned religious thought throughout the centuries as well as the Bible support my viewpoint on that. My Christianity still has some fire and brimstone in it.
Judgment? Yes. But I think good-evil, saved-lost, etc., puts too fine of a point on it. Life is much more complicated than that. To think the afterlife is simpler seems wrong.
I would think God would be fair, if nothing else. Someone explain to me how it's fair to base ETERNITY on decisions we bags of meat try to make in this blip of a life, especially since it's such a hostile environment. It's overkill. Like capital punishment for people caught speeding. Unfair by definition.
My Christianity is now almost devoid of fire and brimstone.
ER, perhaps you've been seduced by gray. I can certainly understand it. I myself want to reject the notion of justice. I want there to be a sliding scale. I'd like circumstances to make a difference. I want my idea of a wise and loving New Testament God to replace the Old Testament God who sent the Hebrews to exterminate the heathen to the last man, woman and child. However ... what I want will not change what is. I am not vain enough to think that God will remake the universe at my request. The fire and brimstone are part and parcel of the love and mercy. My finite mind cannot contain these two infinite opposites so I acknowledge that they exist and continue to make my way with prayer and faith, believing that the answers are there and that one day His plan and my place in it will be clear.
It sure sounds like you and ER would enjoy a conversation with the Mormon missionaries on the "levels" of the hereafter. ;)
FF, I've had that conversation a couple of times. Not enough to be an expert on your theology, of course, but enough that I understood your comment. I don't know if ER has taken the discussions with the missionaries or not.
I think the OT is best seen as humankind's attempt to explain its evolving awareness and consciousness of God. And I think that people of faith are past that now -- or should be.
I cannot fathom how the God that Jesus points is supposed to have been so capricious and to have committed genocide ijn the OT. I just don't buy it -- which is one of the reasons I say I take the Bible seriously, but I do not take all of it literally.
Seduced by gray? No, seduced by Grace of Jesus, which cannot be reconciled with the angry, jealous, murderous tribal God depicted in the Old Testament.
On the other hand, I think the Christian life is one of both faith AND works -- not either-or-- that is, if we want to have the abundant life (NOTHING to do with material prosperity!) that Jesus promised.
Which is why I was shocked and pleassed to learn the other day that the church I grew up in is putting in a free clinic! Right there in the church building! Awesome. I'll bet some members quit over that. Good, I say.
I've still got some fire and brimstone also. I don't believe God wants us to be lukewarm. I can't remember the verse exactly, but He does say be hot or cold otherwise He will spat us out. There's no riding the fence with God! There will be a one on one judgement for each of us and we will be held accountable-not only for what we did do, but for what we neglected to do. Only Jesus knows what will happen.
It's true that it is difficult or even impossible to understand how one being can contain the pure fire of justice and the comforting mantle of love. That is part of the mystery and wonder of the Bible. To explain it away as a teaching myth or flawed history strikes at the very core of faith and reduces miracles to folklore and forgiveness to a philosophy. And I will not do that. I will embrace the wonder and mystery and admit my inability to understand. I will approach the throne of God with humility, awe and joy. I am comforted by the thought that I am not required to understand God. And I won’t waste time in attempting to do so. There is plenty of work to be done here that requires our attention. Those Change the World links on my blog are not there because they’re politically correct. They’re there because our contributions –- however small -- matter. We are God's tools on earth, and we are supposed to be doing His work. What higher thing could we aspire to?
Ah, but that's the point. Where's the justice in condemning for eternity those whose biggest mistake was being born into the fleeting blink of earthly existence, under the alleged Curse of Adam, burdened with the tendency to sin? Yes, that's what Jesus saves us from. And I say He saves as many people who unwittingly receive His grace as those who think they consciously have struck some kind of bargain with God. No bargains. Grace is greater than not only my sin -- but all sin. IMHO.
I disagree with the following:
"strikes at the very core of faith ..."
No. Strikes at the center of Bibliolatry.
"and reduces miracles to folklore ..."
No. I said nothing about miracles.
"and forgiveness to a philosophy."
Uhh, I don't know what you mean.
:-)
My favorite verse is John 3:17, and that ain't a typo.
I cannot understand, ER, why you think you can understand God or that He is going to conform to any human idea of justice. The parts of the Bible that you dislike, you decide aren't truly God's will. I truly am unable to see how anyone is capable of doing so without being accused of hubris. If I had my druthers, I'd rewrite the Bible a bit myself, but I don't. Neither does anyone else.
I think that there can be no bridge between our two positions. I find yours unacceptable while I believe you find mine equally so. Isn't it curious that two of us who came from the same place, who attended many of the same churches and who are products of many of the same influences have drawn different conclusions regarding the Bible and its place in our lives? Life is funny.
Even though I’ve come to the conclusion that we are too apart in this, don’t think I haven’t enjoyed the exchange of views. It has been interesting.
It is impossible to build a bridge between those who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of The Most High God and those who believes it's a nice book of suggestions that can be adapted to modern life by diluting its message. It makes me think of that story of teaching a pig to fly. It wastes your time and annoys the pig! :)
Gloria, I don't think ER holds the attitude that you're attributing to him. But I don't actually know how he regards the Bible overall. ER, would you like to clarify?
well, i certainly don't think it's merely a "nice book of suggestions."
But, i think to accept it wholly as THE "infallible" "Word of God" is a form of idolatry. It's worshiping part of the creation rather than the Creator.
I don't "pick and choose" what to believe in the Bible. I believe the collection of writings that we now call the Bible in a totally different way. I do NOT read it as a literal "instruction book" or a "letter" to us today to be taken at face value without serious thought, meditation and prayer.
This helps explain what I think. In a nutshell, the Bible points to the Word of God, which is the Logos, that is, Jesus. The need for "infallibility" or "inerrancy" is borne of the need for certitude, which, I think, is something short of faith and is foreign to the earliest Christians:
"The United Church of Christ embraces a theological heritage that affirms the Bible as the authoritative witness to the Word of God, the creeds of the ecumenical councils, and the confessions of the Reformation. The UCC has roots in the 'covenantal' tradition -— meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church. We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith. The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith."
Also, I have totally separated myself from my Southern Baptist upbringing, specifically the fundamentalist aspects of it.So, that's how we can spring from the same root, Tech, but now be so different in our thinking.
Oh, and no, Tech, I don't find your views unacceptable -- not for you! They are just not my views. I feel no need to convince you that my way is right and yours is wrong!
That's another thing I've deliberately cast aside: The idea that there is a list of doctrinal ideas that Christians must adhere to to be considered Christians. Following Jesus? Or at least trying? That was good enough for Jesus. It's good enough for me.
To believe the Bible is the Word of God is not idolatry. That's catchy, but it's incorrect and dismissive. I don't worship the Bible, I don’t pray to it, I don’t expect it to grant me grace, I don’t give tithes to it, it didn’t create the universe, etc. It is not my idol. What it is, however, is the God message to us. And thus, I respect it much more than I do humanity’s sophistry.
I’m not much of a doctrinal person since I believe Christians can be found everywhere – Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, but there are some basic tenets that being a Christian requires. Such as, believing Jesus is the Son of God, accepting Him as your personal savior, etc. Those are not so much doctrinal as they are fundamental to salvation.
The nice thing about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about any of that! :)
Well, Silm, you don't have to worry about it --- yet! :)
I don't see how anyone who rejects the Bible or lessens its place can be a true Christian. I'm sure that seems harsh to the readers of this blog but that's how I and most of the organized churches see it. You might as well deny the virgin birth or the resurrection!
JKC, I don't think any of us can know what is in another person's heart or what their true relationship with God is. Those judgement calls are best left to the Big Guy. I do understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's productive.
Tech, there's a lot to be said for calling a spade a spade. I worry that by not calling sin into question, we are silently giving approval to it. We're not supposed to be judges, but we can use common sense when dealing with the world, which may claim they're Christians but don't follow Christ's teachings.
Christ's teachings are summed thusly:
Love God. Love your neighbor.
Anything else is adding on.
I think the big issue here is that most people loook at "the Bible" as a single piece of writing, which it is not, which is, to borrow your word, Tech, sophistry; a lesser issue but the one that gets people fire up, is the idea that "it" is "God's revelation to man" when it is better seen, and interpreted, as man's attempt to understand and explain God.
The obvious contradictions and limitations of the words themselves should be enough for anyone to be wary of basing their faith on the Bible and their interpretation of it rather than in God Himself as revealed through Jesus and believed by the Churcfh through the ages -- whether everyday believers HAD the Scriptures in hand or NOT, he said, noting that for most of the past 2,000 years, everyday believers did NOT have the Scriptures in hand, which is why this kind of argument didn't even happen until lately.
Re, "there are some basic tenets that being a Christian requires ..."
Yes, but believing that the Bible is the "infallible, innerrant" "Word of God is not one of them.
"believing Jesus is the Son of God ..."
Christians have disagreed as to the metaphysics of the exact relationship of Jesus of Nazareth to God the Father for 2,000 years. So, while the majority of modern Christianity would agree with that, not all of Christianity would.
"Accepting Him as your personal savior ..."
Many of us would say that the above phrase, as beloved to me, Tech, as it is to you, is either 1., the start, not the summation of our relationship with God. and-or, 2., something that comes from the habit of trying to follow Jesus, and not always, or even necesarrily, a conscious, deliberate, DECISION, as it were, which smells like a bargain again: If I deign to accept God's grace, then He will save me. Better: Jesus saves us! Let's ALL rejoice in His grace.
Y'all who want to make Christianity such an EXCLUSIVE club, when Jesus Himself was so radically INCLUSIVE, well, you can keep that kind of Christianity. Because Christianity is one thing, the bureaucracy that's grown up around the legacy of Jesus; life, and it more abundantly, which comes from trying to follow Jesus, is another thing.
Oh, and I agree with this, but I haven't said anything at all about sin:
"I worry that by not calling sin into question, we are silently giving approval to it."
Absolutely.
Why, yes, it is an exclusive club that anyone, absolutely anyone, can join by acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God and accepting Him as their personal savior. (Yes, the Christian life starts after that, but that's between God and them.) But if someone doesn’t accept Christ, then they’re not Christians. That’s how it works. I do know that basing your Christianity mostly on personal revelation is dangerous. Anyone remember Jonestown? A person can be sincerely wrong. When Saul was stoning Christians, he sincerely believed he was right, but he wasn’t. Something he learned when a burning light took his sight on a dusty road. We now know him. of course, as Paul.
Yes, Gloria, I know you think I'm too accepting in where I find Christians and that I don't preach at the sinners as I should. :) I just haven't noticed that beating people worked all that well.
Slim, you've never explained why you think there's no God. If you feel comfortable with sharing your thoughts, I'd be interested.
"Christians have disagreed as to the metaphysics of the exact relationship of Jesus of Nazareth to God the Father for 2,000 years. So, while the majority of modern Christianity would agree with that, not all of Christianity would."
No offense, E.R. but the definition of Christian is not a mutable thing depending on which religion a person is. There are standards handed down from the first Christians (starting with the Apostles and the brand new converts to the Word of Christ)that define a Christian. You must believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That He is both God and Man. You must believe that the Holy Spirit is also God. In short, the Trinity. This is basic to calling oneself Christian. During the Protestant Reformation in the 1600's, they still believed these things even when they disagreed with the Catholic church on other things. Christ's teachings were about loving one another, but that wasn't the only thing He talked about!
Anyway, this really isn't a good forum for a discussion like this. Explanations are necessarily brief and sometimes cause major misunderstandings! Hopefully, no one will get their dander up by what anyone says. :)
Well said, Rowan.
Thanks to everyone who shared! It was interesting.
I don't know why I don't believe in god, tech. I never have. Even when I was younger and prayed there was a big nothing. I admire your stance and the way you stay open to people. If more christians were like you the world would be a better place. But most of them arent'.
Now Tech, I'm not saying you should beat on the sinners! :) But I worry that your openness can be taken that you approve of lifestyles that aren't Christian.
I agree with Slim that you're special in this world but I think more Christians are like you than aren't. Maybe Slim ran into a bad batch of them!
And Rowan is exactly right in this: "Christ's teachings were about loving one another, but that wasn't the only thing He talked about!" You go girl! :)
Slim, I pray that God opens your heart to Him. He loves you whether you believe in Him or not and I hope one day soon you will feel His love.
Ditto Gloria! :)
Slim, here's an experiment.
Act as if you believe. No, I don't mean go around talking God talk and going to church and pretending. I mean: If there is any good in you, then share it, keeping in mind that, despite arguments over doctrine and theology, that *was* Jesus's main message! Love God, love your neighbor as yourself. I predict that as you love your neighbor, and by that I mean striving to empty yourself of yourself for the good of others, then you will find that the Spirit of the Living God fill the space that is left. No mental tricks can make you believe. And I, for one, would not try to trick you. Seek, and you will find -- but often that has nothing to do with what you *think.*
BTW, this kind of lamnguage cracks me up:
"lifestyles that aren't Christian"
By that, I'm sure, is meant ...
Fat people who ignore the call to treat the body as the temple of God -- their own genetic propensity to obesity be damned.
Smart people who can't help but doubt, and question, and cling to their faith with their heart while letting their mind run free.
Plain ol' ignorant people who experience in life has not put them in a position to learn.
... I could go on but I'm tired, but I consider it my calling -- and I'm dead serious -- to tear down such artifice.
Judge not means one thing: Judge not. Repent means: Turn to God. That means: Turn yourself. Jesus saves. Let Him.
And who called you to that, Redneck? It sure wasn't God despite all your bellowing about your special personal relationship to Him. You go around telling people to not judge when you do it everytime you comment anywhere. You go on about love but can't show it anyone who disagrees with you. As always, I find myself descending to your level. What a talent that must be to drag someone down. Do you notice that Slim-an openly gay man-doesn't say the world should be filled with more Christians like you? Despite the fact you use your blog to defend his lifestyle every chance you get. Why is that? And yes, I consider his lifestyle wrong, but I don't force my view on him or ask him to change, believing that God and true Christians like Tech will help him grow spiritually.
I'm sorry, Tech. I knew better than to comment on this thread as soon as I saw his name. You probably will want to delete this and please do if you think it best. I feel better for having said what I've said even though I know my words mean less than spit to him.
I won't read this thread again, Tech. I think I'd better stay away from the blog for a time. This is certainly not good for my peace of mind or my walk with God.
Gloria, I don't know what to say other than you're wrong about me, and you have an extrmemely limited, but very typical, concept of grace. Oh, and that was an especially vicious comment, and uncalled for. And I don't care whether Tech deletes these comments or not.
Slim, I don't blame you for not wanting the God that Gloria and I both profess. Thank God, so to speak, that He is bigger than any of us.
Come to my place, Slim, and see where this conversation goes. Gloria's words are a *great* premise for the next level.
Tech, Regarding your original entry. You are a terrific writer. You have encapsulated exactly what I believe but am not erudite enough to put into words.
Regarding ER's comments expressing his belief that the Bible isn't important to being a Christian. I know he doesn't come right out and say that, but that is his message, whether he admits to it or not.
He says he cannot fathom how the God that Jesus points to is supposed to have been so capricious and to have committed genocide in the OT.
But considering how many times in history that "genocide" is recorded in the OT, both by God Himself and by His command, then ER's OT is little more than a pamphlet. Additionally, if ER's version of the OT is correct, we find our concept of God even more limited than it already is.
ER, Gloria is spot on in her assessment of you and your apostate concepts.
Yes, God is a God of Love, but he is also a God of justice.
You cannot put God in a finite box constructed from your own limited understanding. You are mortal. He is immortal. You are a creation. He is the Creator. He makes the rules. It is your responsibility to conform to His rules, and not to expect Him to conform to your concept of what the rules are. Lean not on your own understanding. We, as mortal humans, understand very little about God and His perfect rightousness. How arrogant of you to to assume you know the mind of God!
Again, you're wrong about me. You put words in my mouth. How arrogant to assume you know anyone's mind, let *alone* God's.
See TECH, this is why you don't like to blog about religion. Because people inevitably descend to the tribal level in defense of their individual totems.
Slim, if you are saved, it will be despite Christians, not because *of* them.
Christians SUCK -- me, chief among them.
And before any of you gasp too deeply: That is exactly the kind of thing that Paul himself said.
Oh, and Anon, that whole last paragraph of yours?
Back at ya. All of it. Every word.
You'd deny me fellowship because I am saved by God, through Christ DESPITE the clear shortcomings, contradictions and limitatiosn of Scripture -- because GOd is not bound by *that* book or any other penned by man, and Christ is more than some red letters on a page!
I would *not* deny you fellowship just because you worship the Creation, that is, the Bible, as mich as the Creator, that is, God: "I know (Anon) doesn't come right out and say that, but that is his message, whether he admits to it or not."
Ouch! Words crammed into your mouth! How does it feel?
Okay kiddos, simmer down. This is just a post on a blog. It doesn't change anything in the great scheme of things. For that matter, your words to each other also don't change anything other than make you mad at each other, and that's not good for you or for the state of Christianity. Take a deep breath, let it out, remember what the Bible says about a soft answer and think about what Jesus said about loving your fellow man and how many times He said for us to forgive each other.
Many years ago, I started writing a book called At Cross Purposes: When God's People Don't Get Along. I wanted it to be a book about how to deal with disagreement in the church. At the time, I lacked the writing and life experience to make much headway on it. Maybe it's time to take it up again.
That's what I like about youTech. You look for solutions. those other two are too busy yelling at each other. Redneck is right, if I ever became a Christian and I don't see that never happening but who knows, it wouldn't be because of people yelling at each other.
Some times Tech you make me think I've missed out. Rednenck doesn't know that I come from that same backward town you two do. When I got to Dallas among other gays for the first time I could be myself. It was wonderful. And I thoguht it was enough. But I've been here two years now and Im wondering is this all my life is going to be. Don't missundertand me. I would NEVER go back in the closet but some times I wish I was someone else other than my perfection! :) Sorry about the misspellings. I've got to go to class. Later!
Most outstanding post Tech.
Especially loved your phrase "rock bottom certainty".
Most creeks, streams, or rivers do run over rock outcrops and you look for that rock bottom to ford them. But I was raise in the land of the Red River and the Canadian River and they have no "rock bottoms". So out here when you cross over the rivers (except of course on a bridge) even at the best of fords there is a degree of uncertainty the permeates your thinking. So you go slow and easy and skeptical hopeing not to hit the quicksand.
My view of heaven is tempered in that way. Heaven is the prescence of God. That's all I can distill my belief down to. I think that we will only be able to experience heaven to the degree we are prepared. Each will experience God differently and in differently quantities. Thus "heaven" will be an individual thing, just as life is here. For only "now" will ever touch eternity.
I want to apologize to Tech and to the other readers of this blog. I let my personal dislike for Redneck push me into being rude to him. Unfortunately I did it in front of all of you. A moment ago, I got off the phone with Tech who assures me that Redneck has many good qualities. Perhaps so. I can't see them, but it's not my place to judge him, either. I apologize to him for attacking him and hope that both of us will continue to grow in the Lord's wisdom.
Accepted.
Me, too.
I have no personal dislike of you Gloria, BTW. And aside from one personal and mean encounter with you two years ago, I have no idea why you would personally dislike me. But hey, we each have our burdens.
Peace.
We wandered away from the subject and touched on some aspects of faith and religion. It was a good discussion, despite the flares. Thanks to everyone who shared. I appreciate it.
Amber, that is the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a good while. Thanks. :-)
Hello TECH (et al) I found my way here by following a link on ER’s blog where I lurk regularly and, as things go in the blogosphere, this seems to be a fairly civilised discussion. If you don’t mind I’d like to add my own views to it and see what you all think.
TECH, Slim wasn’t able to totally articulate the reason he’s an atheist but, if you are interested, my reasoning (for being an atheist) is essentially as follows: There is simply no hard evidence which points to the existence of a god being, in addition to which it is phenomenally unlikely that such a being exists and (in my opinion) even more phenomenally unlikely that it would notice, let alone care about, humanity and our individual thoughts and deeds if it did.
ER, with respect to the experiment you proposed; what you describe as “the Spirit of the Living God” is what most people would call the satisfaction of philanthropy. I have no problem believing in that, but it is vastly different from the God that any Church, Mosque or Synagogue expects you to believe in. What is your experiment intended to prove?
Slim, I don’t know you beyond what you’ve written in these comments, but what you do say sounds very familiar to me. Finding a large gay community, with all of the support and new opportunities it provides a gay man brought up in a small town, is great but ultimately it’s only part of the trip to finding satisfaction in our lives. Just like anyone else in the world, gay men have to identify what is really meaningful to them, then set our goals and pursue them. We only have one life – we have to make it count.
AmberClear, a small rebuttal; as far as I know, no-one has ever seriously suggested that man did create or design the universe, although I would point out that long before ‘scientists’ showed up on the scene, man had been domesticating and interbreeding both plants and animals to create new strains with particular desirable attributes such as giving more milk, or meat, or ears of corn per stalk. As for Christianity, I judge it as I would judge an individual; by its words and deeds – and on the whole it is not pretty. I suspect that Jesus Christ, if he was even approximately the man portrayed in the four gospels, would be horrified by what is done today in his name. (For what it’s worth, I suspect the same would be true of both Mohammed and Moses. They were, after all, men of their time!)
OK, well that’s all for now. What do you think?
Thanks, Amber. Right back at ya! :)
Liam, thanks for dropping by and sharing. I think most everyone has moved on, which is a shame as I think their thoughts on what you’ve said would be interesting. As for evidence, I don't think there is evidence that there isn't a God, either. But I don't go the evidence route because I think that's not the way to God. I think God is beyond human reasoning. (I think string theory is beyond most of us, too, but still a lot of smart people are taking it seriously. There’s also folded dimensions, hidden dimensions and a thousand other absurd things that physics is teaching us. The ability to believe in the impossible is almost a requirement in the world of physics these days, even though some of the things they’re discovering seem totally contrary to common sense.) Of course, there are some great books taking the evidence route -- I'd suggest C.S. Lewis's The Case for Christianity for a start -- but such arguments ultimately leave me cold. My belief in God is rooted deeper than my reasoning. If that seems like a cop-out, I don't mean it to be such.
Slim and I have been emailing since this post, and he has raised many interesting points concerning his thoughts and concerns about Christianity. (I asked him and received permission before sharing here any of what we’ve been talking about.) His major objection is how poorly gays have been treated by various churches. And they have been treated poorly. Prejudice has masqueraded as piety. It's an ugly thing. It makes the news. But there are plenty of Christians like me who don't beat gays up and attempt to treat them the way we think Jesus would want us to treat them -- with love -- in other words as friends. And it doesn’t matter if bigots attempt to justify their actions by warping the Bible to meet their aims. People have murdered in the name of democracy, also, but that doesn’t make democracy wrong or evil. Frankly, we humans are always willing to do evil and line up our justifications like little clockwork soldiers. It doesn’t make it right. Getting beyond to the truth is a difficult thing.
Another thing before I forget: I’m uncomfortable with identifying people as “the gays.” I don’t identify other people as “the straights.” I like to approach people as they are as individuals. Slim is an individual. He happens to be gay, but that is not the sum of him. However, even if Slim found a group of accepting Christians, this won’t give him a belief that God exists. It would only make him friendlier to Christians. Maybe that’s the first step, I don’t know. I do know that I want him to be happy. And I think people are happier and live more fulfilled lives when they are able to feel God’s love.
Liam, I think that "satisfaction that comes from philanthropy" is a non-believing way to say "the Spirit of the Living God" -- a hint of His grace. Being a religious conviction, not a provable or disprovable hypothesis, I assert it as a truth, rather than argue it as a theorem, or thesis.
And, what TECH said. Except for, I reference "gays" in the same spirit that anti-slavery proponents used "slaves" or "Africans" or "bondsmen" to mean those who, in times past, seemed to have been severely misteated, as a class, by the Church as a whole.
That is, buying a slave and manumitting him or her was one thing; end slavery as an institution was another. Being loving and kind to a gay person is one thing; working to end the Church's largely graceless mistreatment of the class of people known as "gay" is another.
And, lurk less! Comment more! (over at my place) :-)
I've said before that if the world had more Techs it would be a better place. I let one of my gay friends read what Tech wrote and he was very impresed. We also found the Over my Head posts and saw that Tech was more than nice words. Does that make me believe in "God"? No. But I don't think that every Chrisitian is out to get me anymore either. But I wonder how many people in that small town we (Tech ER and me)came from would support Tech in what he says. I bet not many.
Liam thanks for the advice! :)
ER I don't think the black experience if the same as the gay experience. No one has beat me or made me pick cotton or kept me chains. It's different. Also people aren't totally one thing. Being gay isn't all of me. And I've been with girls before. I don't know what makes me. tech says that sexuality is like a sliding scale with one end totally straight and ther other totally gay and people are on that scale somewhere. That makes sense to me.
My point about the sliding scale was that we should be careful about applying labels to people. Identifying a group of people by their sexual orientation is a way to create barriers. It's also absurd because people are more than their sexuality.
Tech, is that really practical? When you dealing with one homosexual, then you can call him by his name. But when you're dealing with a group of them, a label is necessary, particularly when they're pushing a gay agenda on the rest of the country. You can't list all their names one by one.
Re, "tech says that sexuality is like a sliding scale with one end totally straight and ther other totally gay and people are on that scale somewhere. That makes sense to me."
Slim, as for our hometown: You are correct.
As for the comparison with slavery, you're right about thatm, too. A better comparison is with blakcs in the Jim Crow South. Race, BTW, is not *all* that black people are, either. Or anybody else.
JKC: The "gay agenda" is "liberty."
UH, Tech, I meant to say I agreed with yoru remark I quoted directly above.
ER, I had wondered about that. :)
JKC, a group is composed of individuals. I understand your point, however, and will think on it.
Amber, I agree, on the selfish anarchy. That's sort of what I was alluding to when I said, " 'satisfaction that comes from philanthropy' is a non-believing way to say 'the Spirit of the Living God' -- a hint of His grace" -- because I can't imagine where any "satisfaction" would come from philanthropy if it didn't come from God. The philantrhopy, too, for that matter, whether acknowledged by the philanthropist or not.
I think the gay thing came up when GloriaWilliams whacked me upside the head, draggin into it some of the reason she dislikes me personally. She apologized. It's cool. But that's how gayness got entered into this thread.
TECH, I think that to claim God is beyond human understanding really is a bit of an intellectual cop-out. Whether he exists or not, religions which claim to speak for him wield tremendous influence all over the world – and by that I mean Islam and Judaism, just as much as I mean Christianity. On that basis alone we should study God with every faculty available to us. If there actually IS a God in the commonly accepted mould then, firstly by existing, secondly by his act(s) of creation and finally by continued tinkering with the creation (in answering prayers, performing miracles, etc.) he falls very much within the remit of science, whose task is to understand and explain the universe.
And why would evidence or proof be bad for anyone? As it stands, if God exists, two-thirds and more of everyone who has ever lived is certainly damned for eternity because of their faith (or lack of it.) Doesn’t that strike you as a little bit crazy? Surely finding incontrovertible proof of God’s existence and thinking is the way to ensure that everyone is saved, which is purported to be what God wants?
BTW I like your subsequent paragraph about ‘the gays.’ Personally I cringe whenever people talk about ‘the gay community’! It’s no different from having the same hair colour as someone else or being the same height as them. Being gay doesn’t mean that you necessarily think a certain way, at best you have some shared experiences that other folk don’t. The nearest I can say I feel to being part of a community is that I am more likely to defend a gay man than a straight man if I see him getting grief over something – but I think that is just a kind of lingering ghetto-mentality from my upbringing.
Anyway, may your style of Christianity spread throughout your co-religionists!
Ah, ER, you’ve cut to the chase already! We are indeed arguing from mutually incompatible bases; you have a religious conviction and to you it is inherently true, whereas I cannot accept it without proof, which you are implicitly unable to provide. Stalemate.
Surely you’ll agree though that there is quite a gulf between feeling ‘the Spirit’ in this way and believing the Christian creed?
Hey, Slim, from what I’ve read, I think you’re probably right; if there were more TECHs around, the world would be a better place... but (at the risk of sounding like a cynical old man) let me just point out that it’s not the people who aren’t out to get you that you’ve got to watch out for! :o)
Hello Amber. I don’t think I can agree that Christianity cannot be judged by its people. The philosophy of Christianity, the message if you like, inspires people to live and act in certain ways. Surely there is no better way to judge the message than by the sum of the lives and actions it inspires?
Bigotry is certainly bigotry whatever your religion, but bigotry is an unreasoning intolerance, so people don’t see it as bigotry if they can point to passages in the bible and say ‘God tells me this is so.’ And the bible gives people a lot of leeway in deciding what is God’s word!
One thing I think we can agree on though is that the world is an absolute miracle – although I think we could probably spend quite a while discussing what ‘miracle’ means to each of us! :o) The world is truly a beautiful, awe-inspiring place.
I am a bit concerned though that the only thing keeping you from wading in blood, sex and gluttony is the thought that God is constantly looking over your shoulder! Would you really be that wicked person if you didn’t think God was there to punish you for it?? I think you are doing humanity an injustice. It’s difficult to prove the point since Judaeo-Christian religion has had so much influence on the development of our civilisation but, if you’ll accept the comparison, I would point you to the co-operative nature of the higher animals such as apes and dolphins; although they all have aggressive traits, they show no particular bent towards exterminating each other ‘just because they can.’ Rather they live co-operatively and successfully. I think basic human morality is deeper seated than something we learn from a book, however old that book might be.
Re, "Surely you’ll agree though that there is quite a gulf between feeling ‘the Spirit’ in this way and believing the Christian creed?"
I do agree. I find myself among a minority of Christians in asserting that it doesn't matter that much what you believe. What matters is that God loves us. All of us.
The main thing that keeps me from being an outright Universalist is lack of balls. Give me time, not that it matters to you now -- but in the far distant future: Hoo boy. :-)
At 4:06 a.m., it occured to me that rather than "balls," it might very well be lack of "faith" that keeps me from being a Universalist.
Re, "Christianity teaches that the good people were released from 'hell' when Christ was resurrected--they went to heaven"
Uh ... I must have missed that. Seriously. ???
Yes, ER, seriously. I've heard that at both the Assembly and the Baptist. It is taught that during the three days that Jesus was dead, He went to Hell and preached to all those who hadn't had a chance to hear His message. They were given a chance to accept salvation. There are some verses about that:
1 Peter 3:18 -- For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
1 Peter 4:5 -- They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
6 For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
There are only a handful of verses about Christ preaching to the spirits during the three days. It's mostly a mystery.
Amber, you don't need to apologize for being excited. You've been civil and polite. You have nothing to apologize for.
Liam, actually I think you might have missed my point since you thought it was a cop-out. Although I did bring up that possibility because it seems any time a Christian chooses what's in his/her heart over supposedly rational thought, we told we're wrong. We're dismissed as emotional, unintelligent, backward people. The thought is that if only we could be educated, we'd give up this ridiculous idea of a divine being and move into the enlightened fields of secular humanism, and the world would be a bright, beautiful place filled with bunnies and butterflies. Ahem. And that's why atheists remain constantly surprised at the anger and venom they face when they attack religion. They don't understand what they’re attacking.
Let me try to explain by sharing a bit of my life. I lost both my mother and my father unexpectedly. We were a close family, and their deaths rocked my world. I was thrown into a deep depression, a depression that was life-threatening. I've battled depression my whole life with therapy, drugs, etc. But this time, it wasn’t enough. I didn't know how to survive. In fact, I didn't want to. However, my faith says that my parents are in heaven and that I can be with them again, and can be with my younger brother whom we lost to a heart aliment. And from that, I found the strength to go on living. My faith saved my life. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that I could be reunited with my family and friends who have passed on. So when someone attacks the idea of God, when they say that God doesn't exist, they're not just knocking down a theory I hold. They're not just dismissing some fancy that briefly took hold of my life. They're attacking the foundation of what allows me to be here. They're threatening my life. Other Christians also have such foundation reasons for believing in God. And when their faith is attacked, they respond viciously. It's the survival instinct in pure, terrible mode, and it cannot be beat down. Because atheists -- by the nature of who they are -- don't hold that belief, they fail to understand how important it is to Christians.
Certainly people have done some terrible things in the name of Christianity. The Crusades weren't a bright spot, and the Inquisition was shameful. But they pale beside the murders and horrors inflicted on innocent people by non-religious movements such as the Nazis and Stalin's enforced atheism. Or how about Pol Pot who did his best to wipe out any religion with such zeal that they still finding mass graves (at last count, over 2.5 million people).
Christianity is perfect in its ideal form. Love thy neighbor, be honest, be kind, and all the other virtues mentioned on the Sermon on the Mound. Unfortunately, Christianity is practiced by people. And some people choose to be bad. They choose to be evil. People are not perfect, and they make terrible mistakes. Straight, gay, black, white, Native American, you name it, and you will find no perfect people. People are people. But just because we fail at achieving a goal, it doesn't mean the goal is flawed. And this applies to not just Christianity. Science takes a lot of flack for the terrible prices we sometimes play for its mistake. But its goals are pure. Unfortunately, just like religion, scientists are people. And they get seduced by money or by nationalism, and they breed killer germs for war and build nukes for slaughter. Nothing on this earth is or will ever be perfect. But Christians have the hope of perfection someday.
However, some Christians even take this hope and twist it to justify their uncaring ways. They say, "Since Heaven is perfect and the earth isn't, then it doesn't matter what we do to the earth because God's in control and He won't let us affect the climate, poison the rivers, foul the soil, unless it's in His plan." They're lazy at best and evil at worse. Christianity is not, repeat NOT, a lets-get-saved-and-sit-on-our-butts faith. We're meant to get out there and make the world a better place. Jesus said for us to feed the poor, heal the sick, care for the fallen. Yes, this is the so-called social Gospel, and I believe in it zealously. We cannot attain perfection down here, that's true, but there is no reason to wallow in fear, shame, poverty, ignorance and sorrow. We're meant to get out there and change the world for the better.
Hmm, I seem to have wandered all over the place here. It might be the cold medication I'm taken or the lack of the sleep. What was my point again? Maybe it’s this: I want the world to grow up. I want it to make adult decisions. I want us to protect the environment. I want us to keep our children safe. I want us to use our technology wisely. I want us to reach the stars. I want us to not only hold off the approaching night, but burn in the darkness like a thousand radiant suns.
Wow, those cold meds are something else … :)
Tech & Erudite Redneck, I've also heard that preached from the pulpit: Jesus shattering the Gates of Hell and preaching to the sinners therein. I've never understood it. What sinner in Hell wouldn't accept His message? But apparently some refused Him. Or at least that's what I remember from the sermon.
Tech, what are the Over My Head posts that Slim mentioned? I can't seem to find them on your blog.
Brother, you have nailed it:
"So when someone attacks the idea of God, when they say that God doesn't exist, they're not just knocking down a theory I hold. They're not just dismissing some fancy that briefly took hold of my life. They're attacking the foundation of what allows me to be here. They're threatening my life. Other Christians also have such foundation reasons for believing in God. And when their faith is attacked, they respond viciously. It's the survival instinct in pure, terrible mode, and it cannot be beat down. Because atheists -- by the nature of who they are -- don't hold that belief, they fail to understand how important it is to Christians."
Yea and verily, the same can be said of Muslims and attacks on *their* faith. Observant Jews, too, I reckon.
Amber, I have never ever heard what you said about the fathers of our faith. Never. So, I'll sure have to have some citations. :-)
Remember, tho, that according to Scripture, Elisha didn't even die -- he was just taken ("up") -- to heaven, presumably.
Nope. I don't buy that part about Moses, Noah, etc., going to hell. They were saved by faith in God, anticipating Jesus, just as people today are saved by faith in God, looking back to Jesus. Or at least that's the mainstream Christian view of it anyway.
Well, since Irenaeus thought anyone who didn't believe every single thing exactly as he did was an absolute heretic, I consider him a questionable authority.
Again, I recall now that Jesus went to heel and preached. But I'd never heard that everybody and their dogs who lived before Jesus automatically went to hell.
Amber, with respect to animals and humans, you are making a fairly artificial distinction. What evolution predicts, DNA analysis confirms; while we are certainly a separate species, we are very closely related to other primates. We share 98-99% of our active DNA with chimpanzees. Chimps are self aware, they use tools, they can learn to communicate with us in sign language. Despite the superficial differences, we are not so very different.
With respect to the miracles of the bleeding host, yes I’d be interested to see documentation of scientific investigation, although I suspect you’ll be hard-pressed to find much of worth. If the miracles were repeatable (to allow scientific investigation) the church would likely prevent or limit access in order to preserve the mystery. Similarly details of miracle healings and surviving off communion wafers would be welcomed, although I think those would be considered weaker proof as there is plenty of extant evidence of the remarkable abilities of the human body.
The reference to “two-thirds or more” going to hell was actually a guestimate based on Christians making up one-third of the world’s population, which means that two-thirds of the current population are not Christian and so wouldn’t be saved if Christians were right that you need to accept Jesus as your saviour in order to gain salvation. Given ongoing exponential population growth, I’m happy enough to stand by my figure as a good approximation.
Meaning of life. When I was a teenager (before I’d really formed any clear views on the pros and cons of religion) it occurred to me that the two main driving forces of humanity are the desire to procreate and the desire to create a better world for our children. Nothing in the years since then has changed my mind about that. These drives express themselves in many different ways but pretty much every human action is based on them one way or another; we can’t help it, it’s just the way we are wired.
Don’t apologise, you haven’t stepped on my toes at all; you’ve been nothing but polite and articulate. I must offer my apologies tonight though to you (and all) if I’m not giving your points the thorough discussion they deserve; I’m afraid my 3D life is pretty hectic at the moment, so I don’t have a great deal of time to devote blogging but I really wanted to get back to you on the points you raise.
Tech, I thought long and hard about what to say in response to your various replies. Your faith has clearly helped you through some difficult times and I’m sorry that you can’t find worth in life without it, because the world is still a magnificent, awe-inspiring, challenging, rewarding and stimulating place to be, even without a God. Atheism and Secular Humanism are no fluffy-bunny paradise where everyone is always happy, but then neither do we look for scapegoats, good or bad, for our actions or our experiences; we deal with them rationally because that is the way the world works and none of the wide range of mutually exclusive, contradictory religions makes more sense to us than doing that.
I won’t harp on about Hitler’s contradictory religious views, nor about Pol Pot’s ‘new people’ and ‘depositees,’ but I would ask you to read a few articles on Wikipedia about them, their beliefs and their motivations. Judging by what you’ve said, I think you will be surprised.
“I want the world to grow up. I want it to make adult decisions. I want us to protect the environment. I want us to keep our children safe. I want us to use our technology wisely. I want us to reach the stars. I want us to not only hold off the approaching night, but burn in the darkness like a thousand radiant suns.” Absolutely!
PS Amber, it is often impossible to positively prove that something does not exist and such is currently the case with God so, yes, in as much as I try to keep an open mind in the absence of proof, I am open to being convinced. To believe that there is no God without positive proof of that belief would be irrational and would, in effect, make atheism my religion.
Admitting the possibility though, does not make something likely. Suffice it to say that I am as certain that there is no God as I am that the sun will rise again tomorrow.
Good night all.
Liam, I'm confused by two things in your reply.
First - The scapegoat comment. I don't know what you were responding to. I don't blame God or anyone for my parents' and brother's deaths (except maybe the healthcare system in the U.S. because if we hadn't been so poor, my brother might still be alive). So I don't know what you're talking about.
Second - At first, I resented this comment: "Your faith has clearly helped you through some difficult times and I’m sorry that you can’t find worth in life without it ..." And then I found it funny. I was feeling much pity for you because you lacked the ability to believe in God when I discovered you were pitying me! The irony, I hope, is not lost on you. I shared the hard times in my life -- and please don't think that was easy -- because I wanted you to understand how important my faith was to me. If you thought that I was attempting to bring you to any faith, you're mistaken. I can only share my experiences. If they resound with someone, then that's cool, but I believe faith -- or lack thereof -- is a personal matter. By that, I mean it's a decision that each person has to make. I can no more carry you to God than you will ever be able to shake my faith.
Furthermore, I wrote two articles on Hitler's mystical beliefs and three papers on Pol Pot. My World Politics professor was a refugee from the Soviet Union. He had plenty to say about Stalin, Lenin and the freedom to believe. I don't throw out references without having a basis to do so. I'm disappointed that you made the judgment that I would. I wonder what that says about your opinion of my intelligence and education. I doubt I would enjoy finding out.
And finally, my point with Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin was that Christianity had little or nothing to do with them. If you're broadening your focus to include all religions and mystic traditions, fine, but your previous comments were about judging Christianity. You may see Christianity as a great evil, but there are and will be other faiths and philosophies that will find their goals twisted into nightmare. If we judge a movement by its followers, then none are worthy of our belief. In my county’s jail sits a man who shot his wife and their three-old daughter. He claims to be an atheist and that his wife’s religious beliefs were part of his reasons to kill her. The truth is that atheism had nothing to do with the murders. He's simply evil. People will never be perfect and we can't judge anything by the way its goals are twisted by evil and selfish people.
This sums up the entire conversation with Liam: "I can no more carry you to God than you will ever be able to shake my faith."
I have to wonder what the point of the conversation is. Why bother talking with those people, Tech?
Matthew 10:14 gives good advice, Tech. You might read it and think about it.
Matthew 10:14 has no application here. TECH is "home" on his blog and Liam is his guest. Admonitions to be hospitable to guests most definitely *does* apply. Besides that, this thread by dedinition is a witness.
"Why bother?" THAT's why.
Hello again Tech. Yes, there’s a certain irony in that, although you can look on the bright side and note that we are both compassionate people… :o)
To answer your points though, the scapegoat comment didn’t refer particularly to your experience; it was meant to be a more general comparison between atheism and religion. Where a religious person may claim the malign influence of the devil, the unfathomable will of God or even divine inspiration for their behaviour an atheist has no choice but to accept the tribulations of the world and take full responsibility for their own actions; there is no higher power to whom to pass the buck.
I think I rather got hold of the wrong end of the stick with your comments about Hitler and Pol Pot, but at the same time I think you have got the wrong idea about my view of Christianity and religions in general. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that atheists are more vicious than religious people when it seems neither of us believes they are. I also don’t believe that Christianity is a great evil, but then I don’t believe it is a great good either.
I’m new to your blog, so I don’t have much experience of your intelligence and education but I didn’t immediately write you off as “emotional, unintelligent [and] backward” either. I can’t deny my continued bewilderment at the irrationality of faith in an otherwise rational person, but you shouldn’t take that personally; it is a general and continual amazement.
Anyway, I’m hoping that you are going to put up another topic for discussion where, provided it isn’t religious, we’ll at least have a common worldview on which to base an interesting debate.
Hello Amber. Do you have the ISBN of the book on Eucharistic miracles and I’ll look it up over here?
I don’t need to personally see the proof of something to believe it, but I do need to have confidence that the proof is there and sufficiently robust to rely on.
Because something cannot be explained by science doesn’t make it a miracle, it just makes it something that needs further investigation. A miracle is something so outside of the natural order of the universe that it cannot possibly be explained through science.
With respect to the start of the Universe, you say that nothing just pops into existence without cause but you believe that God was there before the universe. So what caused him to pop into existence?
I’m beginning to wish I hadn’t written the word scapegoat so late at night as it obviously isn’t conveying what I was meaning. My meaning was that God is often used as an excuse by man for his own actions. On the subject of evil though, surely if God created everything in the universe then evil is part of God’s creation? Any other point of view surely implies that God’s creation was flawed and things happened in it which were not according to his plan.
Chimpanzees don’t have free will?? Well, they’re certainly not mindless robots; they have control over their own actions; they make choices, they can be charitable and they also grieve. I suspect that we are using different definitions of the term ‘free will’?
I don’t think I follow your point about rationalising things – I suspect we may be using different definitions here too. To me, something is ‘rational’ if it can be explained through logic. Reading between the lines of your text I think you use it to denote that an event has meaning. From my point of view, it’s perfectly rational that someone can kill someone else (presumably in a car, accidentally?) while dodging a pot-hole but there is no deeper meaning to the event than a terrible accident.
Nope, I didn’t read you as ‘snippy’ so no reason to apologise to me. This thread continues to be one of the more civilised religious discussions I’ve encountered online!
Ah, Liam, you put your finger on the difference. You see my faith as irrational while I see your lack of faith as irrational. The difference is in the conclusions we draw about the world. We both have the same evidence, but what we conclude from it is wildly different.
Here’s an example: Currently physics is working out the particulars of string theory. Briefly and too simply, elementary particles are the excitable state of these strings. Like the sound waves produced by the vibration of the strings of a violin. String theory allows us to begin the process of reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics, although it’s not the general theory of everything science is looking for – so far. But string theory has a lot of thought and the beginning of scientific proof behind it. Now, string theory leads to M-theory; in fact, string theory requires M-theory. And M-theory says there are other dimensions that react with our dimension. The current popular number is seven, but it’s quite possible there are an infinite number of them. (Cue Star Trek music.) We can’t interact with a dimension that is higher than ours because we are 3-D creatures and cannot exist in a 4-D dimension. (For the sake of this, we will ignore the whole idea of time being a 4th dimension.) In fact, we are limited to going no higher than our dimension, but we could possibly go into a dimension that is lower than ours, i.e. a 2nd or even 1st dimension. Sounds like science fiction, doesn’t it? The math is horrible, and the idea seems impossible, but it appears this or something like this may be true. (Still with me? Just a little further and we’ll get to my point, I promise.) There is nothing that keeps higher dimension beings from interacting with our dimension. (Okay, it would require a lot of energy and a higher understanding of physics than we currently hold, but it’s quite within the realm of possibility.) These higher dimension beings would be able to do things that to our 3-D minds would be miraculous. Things we will never be able to understand because we are limited to the 3-D world. We could use math – that bugbear – to describe what they do, but we would never be able to picture a 4-D or 5-D being. We simply have no points of reference.
My point: Some physicists say that if God exists, He must be a higher dimension being. So they find nothing difficult in believing in higher dimension beings that interact with our dimension. Their understanding of physics allows them to postulate that higher beings can exist. Their understanding of physics allows them to believe God might exist. Science leads to God.
It all sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But if you do a little research on string theory and M-theory, you’ll find out that’s not the craziest things about them. (For instance, empty space isn’t empty; it’s filled with particles that pop in and out of existence constantly. And while the odds are terribly against it – we determine the odds by our current physical examination of the universe – there’s nothing against those particles being organized in a substantial way. In one of Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books, he has a whale appear out of nothingness. While the odds against this happening are impossibly high, they are not infinitely high. The universe is stranger that we can imagine, and impossible things will eventually happen, given enough time. Or how about this? These dimensions may be all around us, but we can’t see or interact with them because they’re infinitely small. So small that they’re infinitely large. Try to fit your mind around that!) A good friend of mine tells me that he finally decided that it was okay to believe in God when he had a rational framework on which to hang that belief. In his case, it was his doctorate on M-theory.
Physics quite rightly stays out of metaphysical debates. It’s hard enough to get the average Congressman to understand why funding is needed for the study of an area that may never produce new technology. (Congressmen don’t like pure science; they like applied science. That’s why the U.S. is starting to lag behind European countries in physics.) But if suddenly there is the discussion of higher beings and “magically” appearing particles, well, there would not only be no money, but they might possible start locking people up in loony bins.
Even though physics is telling us things that our rational mind says are untrue and impossible, physics may be right. Our so-called rational minds can only go so far. A great fear in physics is that the General Theory of Everything may be beyond our grasp because it may require a higher dimension math of a sort that we can never comprehend. I don’t believe that myself. I think that we will eventually – probably by a math not created yet – reach a General Theory of Everything. I’d like to think it would happen in my lifetime, but the odds are impossibly high against that. But not infinitely high.
Now here’s a confession: Even though I love science and can see many possible ways that it confirms the existence of God, I knew God existed long before I ever attended college, cracked a textbook or attended a conference. It’s that irrational thing that you lack the ability to understand and to feel. It’s that fundamental particle we are unable to reduce into its components. It’s called faith.
Oh, I let my roommate read this before I posted it. He sighed when he finished, then his face brightened and he grinned. I asked why he reacted that way. He said, "Well, at least you're not talking about physics with me!"
Oh for goodness sake! Who got him started on physics?! We've barely recovered from the last time!
:)
It wasn't me! It wasn't me! It was Liam! It was Liam! It's his fault!
:)
Ha ha. You two are so funny that it's amazing I'm able to contain my laughter, but somehow I can. :P
Physics? I thought this was a civil discussion! Anything but physics. :)
JKC, see comment I made to Gloria and Slym. :P
I did want to point out that M-theory currently holds that there are 7, 10 or 11 extra dimensions. There are also five different string theories, but M-theory is an attempt to unify them. It's like each theory is an island on a large world. The island are different, but they're describing the same world, just different seqments of the world. Yeah, I know. You don't care. Sigh.
Oh, and did you know that the strings could be open at the their ends or closed? And they have somewhat different properties depending on whether they're open or closed. Yes, it's pretty useless knowledge, but it's fun to know. I may keep punishing -- ah -- sharing physics with you. There seems to be so much interest.
Hey Amber. The ISBN is the number, usually above the barcode, on the back of the book. (It will look something like this: 0-31615-579-9) It will help me find the exact book you mean on Amazon or at the library.
Anyway, if the universe had to have had a designer because it is so complex then, by that same argument, God too had to have been designed by some higher being because he too is incredibly complex; at least as complex as mankind and, actually, by definition, far in excess of us.
If the universe was designed by God then surely he could have designed it without sin; as the only being in existence he was absolutely free to design whatever he wanted. Your argument about free-will is based on the construction of this universe, and particularly on how our human minds work. God could have done it differently and simply not had sin in the universe; he was surely under no duress to include it.
Oh dear, have I unleashed a monster? Sorry folks… I wish I could promise that I’m going to pacify it for you, but actually I’m more likely to poke it with a stick.
Hey TECH, interesting stuff about M-Theory, although I thought it was actually M-theory that required String Theories rather than the other way around. Isn’t M-Theory the general theory of which the different forms of String Theory are just examples?
If you have trouble imagining 4-D or 5-D beings, a great analogy is one that Carl Sagan used many years ago; just subtract dimensions to put it into a familiar frame of reference and imagine a 3-D being looking down on the 2-D “Flatland.” Higher dimensions could indeed be inhabited by higher-dimensional beings who would be able to do things that we would perceive as godlike. Whether they would actually qualify as Gods is just a matter of semantics as all you are really doing is pushing the question of faith back a few dimensions. The same creation/evolution antagonism would still pertain.
Everything you say though is entirely speculative anyway; it isn’t even possible to prove String Theory yet, let alone the existence of beings in higher dimensions and, even if these things were to be proved somehow, they would say absolutely nothing about the validity of Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu, etc.) doctrine. You certainly don’t show here that “Science leads to God,” merely that it’s a possibility – which is a point I have already conceded without argument.
On a side note, it’s funny to hear you bemoaning the lack of funding for pure research and slipping behind Europe, when over here we are bemoaning spending all this money to make scientific discoveries only to have them patented, developed and made into money-spinning products by the business acumen in America! The other man’s grass is always greener, eh?!
Anyway, back to the science. You mention particles constantly popping in and out of existence. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Are you talking about wave-particle duality of things like photons? In which case aren’t you glossing over conservation of energy there, avoiding the point that some of the time the particles are matter and some of the time they are wave-energy? They don’t just spontaneously exist from nothing.
And you quote from Douglas Adams!! I’m pleased to see that modern day men of faith are still versed in the classics! :o) Alas though, it seems not terribly well versed, or else you’d know that the whale didn’t appear out of nothingness, it actually started out as a nuclear missile. Nevertheless, you made your point.
It’s true that ‘anything is possible’ in an infinite universe but don’t forget that this universe isn’t infinite; it’s still expanding and so, by definition, it is finite. OK, it’s really pretty big, so there are lots of possibilities for some really highly improbable things to happen, but you have to balance that against the tiny, miniscule, infinitesimal scale of humankind’s existence both in time and space and admit that we are no more going to see them than the sun is going to rise in the west tomorrow.
I disagree that our rational minds are telling us that the things physics reveals are untrue and impossible. It is our mundane ‘common-sense’ minds, tuned merely to handle the demands of our day-to-day existence on this planet, which balks at geological timescales, the distances between sub-atomic particles or the void between galaxies. Our rational minds can be trained to deal with these concepts, far off our usual scale, in useful ways that actually help us to better understand the workings of the universe. It’s our ‘common-sense’ that limits us.
Yet after all that talk about the wondrous discoveries of science exploring the very fabric of the universe, you go and spoil it all by declaring in your penultimate paragraph that you are not scientific at all. We do indeed have the same evidence about the world, but you made up your mind about God before you even looked at it.
Glad I could help your roommate out though… :o)
Well, my friends, we've reached 108 comments with this comment, and I have to confess that while it's been enjoyable for the most part, I think we've beat this topic to death and beyond. Time to move on.
Just a few final points, and then I'm done.
Liam, I mentioned Douglas Adams because he was a famous atheist. I thought you'd get a kick out of that. It's been a good 20 years since I've read any of the Hitchhiker books so I don't claim and didn't claim to be well-versed in them. I never liked him as much as I like Terry Pratchett. I have every one of Pratchett's books in hardcover. (He's also an atheist if it matters and it shouldn't.) You might read his book Small Gods sometime. It's funny, exciting and wonderfully wise.
Oh, string theory was born in 1970 when three particle theorists independently realized that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also described the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. Five superstring theories soon developed. M-Theory attempts to show that each of those string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory. (Hence my analogy of different islands on the same planet.) M-Theory was first suggested at a conference at USC in 1995 by Edward Written of the IAS, although he drew on the work of several theorists. String theories led to M-Theory, not the other way around. That, by the way, is a question on the test. Extra points: Name the five theories.
And a lot of scientists believe the universe actually is an expanding space-time bubble with infinite space within finite boundaries. I'm afraid we'd need a couple of semesters to cover that, and while I'd be delighted to find even one interested student, that's not what this blog is about. (That's not fair. I know many people who make physics their lives. Never mind.)
I'm sorry that the wonders of physics don't awe you as they do me. They expand my mind and my possibilities in all sorts of ways. I am overwhelmed and humbled and never imagine we will understand it all -- I kind of hope we don't because the quest is the thing. There's joy in the journey. My universe is large enough for all sorts of miracles. And I am happy to be a tiny part of it.
Amber, it's always so cool to discuss issues with you. I miss our days in college, don’t you? Admittedly it was back in the Dark Ages when we had to ride our horses to class, but the memories are still strong. (Except for those fuzzy ones at Bobo's ...)
Slim, thanks for sharing here and in your emails. I'm honored that you would trust me. I hope that I have been some help in your quest for identity. I've got faith in you, dude. I think you will find your way.
Liam, it's been great fun and very illuminating. Next time you visit the states, drop by Oklahoma! Thank you for sharing.
And now I'm done. Love ya, Amber and Gloria. And let's not forget my strange and wonderful friend ER. ER is having some rough times right now. Please stop by his blog and show your support during this sorrowful time. Thanks to everyone else who contributed! Good night.
Post a Comment