I am deeply grateful to the Lord for giving you another clean bill of health, brother. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like -- both to live with the spectre of the cancer returning and to feel the tremendous relief to hear that you are for now still rid of the disease. As I sit here and type this, I'm reminded -- convicted, really -- of how the concerns and turmoils of my heart are so small, so trivial compared to what you and others go through. I am thankful to a loving God who finds a way to provide such needed reminders in ways that touch the right note at just the right time.
There are some who's nature is so caring, so giving, that they can perform a role like Tracey did for you back in 2002. Whether she is really an angel in the Biblical sense I really can't say. But that she was directed by Christ to touch you at that particular time is something I have no trouble believing at all. I am reminded of the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. It was an act of uncommon humility and service, done out of love. There was Tracey, doing something similar, reaching out to you when it might have been better to remain distant.
There is something about such selfless acts like that which reaches right to the core of my heart and moves me deeply. Earlier in this blog I wrote about the woman who held dying infants in her arms so their last moment of life could be one of love and acceptance. Do I have the capacity to do the same? To some degree, perhaps. But as selflessly as others like Tracey? Probably not. At least not yet.
In a war-torn world, full of division and strife, there exists untold thousands -- perhaps millions -- of such "angels," serving in relative obscurity, unnoticed by the world, but watched over by a loving God who knows a thing or two about service himself.
* * *
I went out to iTunes and listend to Robbie Williams' "Angels." Very nice tune; gentle and melodic.
* * *
May the Grace and Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, brother.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Angels
If all religions are equally true, then it can be said that a religion that professed those religions to be false would also be true. That then renders the original religions simultaneously true and false at the same time.
It appears that real-world objects and phenomena (ie. those represented by a collapsed quantum mechanical wave function), that are in conflict with eachother (such as religious viewpoints) cannot be "equally true". Therefore the statement fails the test of "logical completeness" because all sentences in the statement are not provable. So in analysing this statement you need only to read as far as "If all religions are equally true..." ; at that point you can stop and go do something more interesting.
Interestingly, objects and phenomena represented by an uncollapsed QM wave function do indeed appear to possess this ability of being "equally true". This is known as superposition of states, it's how an electron manages to be a wavelike particle and go through both slits (in the two slit experiment). So if Allah and God could be made into QM sized phenomena (of planck scales) --thereby being subject to an uncollapsed wave function, then current thoery states that they could both be "equally true".
Thank you for your experiences of driving across the USA ! Wow. You have a beautiful country my friend and you clearly recognize that. I had to drive a meagre roundtrip of 200 miles today across an England living under a blanket of snow. The rolling hills were also a picture postcard -- like some frozen snow world from the Land of Narnia. It gave one a warm feeling of excitement.
I drove to a hospital to get my now (regular six monthly) checkup for cancer -- all is well, thank you Lord! I made a visit to the ward I stayed on in 2002 and saw there a Christian nurse Tracey -- and visited with some in-patients. Tracey looked after me when I was very ill and I sometimes wonder if she is a real Angel. I would say that 40% of her face is covered by a large birthmark and she must have been teased awfully as a child. Maybe this is why she is so "nice"?
Back in 2002 she made the potential mistake, but I'm very glad that she did, of getting emotionally attached to me and really caring -- so many cancer patients die -- the nurses soon learn not to get too attached to someone who they might be loading into a body bag before their shift is over. This is a survival mechanism for them I believe.
Tracey used to bring me cards with excerpts from The Bible, especially Romans, and these used to bring me hope. It was my age (under 40) and manner of illness (long term chronic pain) that (she said) made her take an interest in me, plus she thought that she was being directed to from above. God bless her and all of the Angels.
There was a little five year old kid there today called Maddock, bald due to the chemo but peddling around like a lunatic in a red and yellow plastic car. I spoke to his dad and you could see how happy he was at his childs joyfulness in the car, but at the same time terrified that he might soon be burying same child. I cannot think of anything worse -- we are so lucky. Generally people were in good spirits though.
Have you heard the song "Angels" by UK artist Robbie Williams? I think it's a true classic and the next generation will be singing it in karaoke bars for sure, just as we did with the song "My Way" from our fathers generation. It lacks cred now, but taps into the emotions that underpin part of the human condition -- the same emotions that are fully explored in Christianity also.
I sit and wait
Does an angel contemplate my fate?
And do they know the places where we go
When we're gray and old?
'Cos I've been told that salvation lets their wings unfold
So when I'm lying in my bed
Thoughts running through my head
And I feel that love is dead
I'm loving angels instead
And through it all she offers me protection
A lot of love and affection whether I'm right or wrong
And down the waterfall
Wherever it may take me
I know that life won't break me
When I come to call
She won't forsake me
I'm loving angels instead
When I'm feeling weak
And my pain walks down a one way street
I look above and I know I'll always be blessed with love
And as the feeling grows
She breathes flesh to my bones
And when love is dead
I'm loving angels instead
Current song: "Angels" -- Robbie Williams
It appears that real-world objects and phenomena (ie. those represented by a collapsed quantum mechanical wave function), that are in conflict with eachother (such as religious viewpoints) cannot be "equally true". Therefore the statement fails the test of "logical completeness" because all sentences in the statement are not provable. So in analysing this statement you need only to read as far as "If all religions are equally true..." ; at that point you can stop and go do something more interesting.
Interestingly, objects and phenomena represented by an uncollapsed QM wave function do indeed appear to possess this ability of being "equally true". This is known as superposition of states, it's how an electron manages to be a wavelike particle and go through both slits (in the two slit experiment). So if Allah and God could be made into QM sized phenomena (of planck scales) --thereby being subject to an uncollapsed wave function, then current thoery states that they could both be "equally true".
Thank you for your experiences of driving across the USA ! Wow. You have a beautiful country my friend and you clearly recognize that. I had to drive a meagre roundtrip of 200 miles today across an England living under a blanket of snow. The rolling hills were also a picture postcard -- like some frozen snow world from the Land of Narnia. It gave one a warm feeling of excitement.
I drove to a hospital to get my now (regular six monthly) checkup for cancer -- all is well, thank you Lord! I made a visit to the ward I stayed on in 2002 and saw there a Christian nurse Tracey -- and visited with some in-patients. Tracey looked after me when I was very ill and I sometimes wonder if she is a real Angel. I would say that 40% of her face is covered by a large birthmark and she must have been teased awfully as a child. Maybe this is why she is so "nice"?
Back in 2002 she made the potential mistake, but I'm very glad that she did, of getting emotionally attached to me and really caring -- so many cancer patients die -- the nurses soon learn not to get too attached to someone who they might be loading into a body bag before their shift is over. This is a survival mechanism for them I believe.
Tracey used to bring me cards with excerpts from The Bible, especially Romans, and these used to bring me hope. It was my age (under 40) and manner of illness (long term chronic pain) that (she said) made her take an interest in me, plus she thought that she was being directed to from above. God bless her and all of the Angels.
There was a little five year old kid there today called Maddock, bald due to the chemo but peddling around like a lunatic in a red and yellow plastic car. I spoke to his dad and you could see how happy he was at his childs joyfulness in the car, but at the same time terrified that he might soon be burying same child. I cannot think of anything worse -- we are so lucky. Generally people were in good spirits though.
Have you heard the song "Angels" by UK artist Robbie Williams? I think it's a true classic and the next generation will be singing it in karaoke bars for sure, just as we did with the song "My Way" from our fathers generation. It lacks cred now, but taps into the emotions that underpin part of the human condition -- the same emotions that are fully explored in Christianity also.
I sit and wait
Does an angel contemplate my fate?
And do they know the places where we go
When we're gray and old?
'Cos I've been told that salvation lets their wings unfold
So when I'm lying in my bed
Thoughts running through my head
And I feel that love is dead
I'm loving angels instead
And through it all she offers me protection
A lot of love and affection whether I'm right or wrong
And down the waterfall
Wherever it may take me
I know that life won't break me
When I come to call
She won't forsake me
I'm loving angels instead
When I'm feeling weak
And my pain walks down a one way street
I look above and I know I'll always be blessed with love
And as the feeling grows
She breathes flesh to my bones
And when love is dead
I'm loving angels instead
Current song: "Angels" -- Robbie Williams
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Gettin' My Kicks on Route 66
Nope, never read "On the Road," but I am aware of its existence. Yes, it was quite seminal ("Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development" --- dictionary.com). On amazon.com they write, "On the Road is a cross-country bohemian odyssey that not only influenced writing in the years since its 1957 publication but penetrated into the deepest levels of American thought and culture."
Driving is the one of the ultimate expressions of freedom available to us, don't you think? No other form of travel -- air, rail or ship -- affords us the same degree of autonomy. And when driving is coupled with a seemingly endless stretch of road before us, it really conveys a sense of exploration and adventure. The beauty of it is that the adventure is relatively risk-free; unlike, say, the adventure of hiking throught he Amazon rainforest, or trekking across the Antarctic.
What I don't quite understand -- and this may very well be due to my low tolerance for the bohemian lifestyle -- is how one can travel across the country with no income and little reserve cash. Driving is expensive. Restaurants, hotels, gasoline ... and the threat of one's car breaking down looms constantly. (Although back in the 1950's the automobile was a considerably less sophisticated machine than it is now. Back then, virtually any "shade tree mechanic" could fix most problems. Today? It takes a special tool just to check the oil.)
One of the things I discovered during this trip across the United States is that this is a strikingly diverse and beautiful country. In the three days I traveled, I drove from the mountains of western North Carolina, across the rolling hills of western Tennessee, over the incredibly flat plains of eastern Arkansas (which produces lots of rice, I determined), down into the vast stretches of Texas, across the high plateau regions of west Texas and New Mexico, and finally down into the Sonoran desert of southeastern Arizona. God truly has blessed this nation. It's a shame we don't feel the gratitude we should.
I came no where near Route 66. There really is such a road. It is not a super-highway like our other "Interstate" roads (that's where the "I" comes from in highway names like I-40, I-95, I-75, I-30 and I-10). Route 66 was a road constructed prior to the Interstate system, and it stretched from the east coast all the way to the west. The book "On the Road" was published in 1957, and was likely written in 1955 or 1956. The act of Congress that initiated the construction of the Interstate system was from about that time frame. So it's likely that Kerouac didn't have access to any freeways as we know them today.
Notes: One can still see residual from the pre-freeway days ... motels dotted along what are now just roads, but off the freeway path. Typically those motels are not of the chain variety, and often are quite run down. I often think about the people who stay in those motels, and the people who operate them. There's a story there, though I don't have the energy to persue it. Also, interesting fact: the Interstate System in the United States was advocated by President Eisenhower, and he shrouded the whole thing in "national defense" terminology to insure its passage. In hindsight, it was a brilliant strategic move -- few things have contributed more to the economic development of this country than our super-highway system. Ironically, such a construction project would be virtually impossible today -- too many special interest groups would decry the cost, the environmental impact, the "discrimination" of both running a freeway near some area and, simultaneously, the discrimination of not running the freeway near some area.
All in all, I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for shepherding me and my automobile across 2000+ miles and delivering me safely home.
* * *
Change of subject. I was listening to a tape series called "Jesus Among Other Gods," by Ravi Zacharia, and he used a piece of logic to attempt to dispel the idea that all religions are equally true. His logic went, if I recall correctly:
Note: I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode (the original series -- still the best) where the crew from the Enterprise is a planet populated by Harcourt Fenton Mudd and his androids. All the androids were gorgeous 1960's go-go girl beauties, and carried number tags around their necks. One male android existed: Norman, tag number 1. The female androids had the capacity for basic problem resolution, but required help from Norman for more complex problems. One of the strategies employed by Kirk and Spock was to overwhelm Norman by presenting the female androids with a series of complex and contradictory things. Spock: "You are like a beautiful flower that smells very bad." The thing that finally made Norman overheat was the logical construction offered by Kirk: "Listen very carefully, Norman: everything I say is a lie." Norman then tried to piece together the circular nature of that: "If everything you say is a lie, then what you just said is a lie, which means everything you say must be true ... "
Driving is the one of the ultimate expressions of freedom available to us, don't you think? No other form of travel -- air, rail or ship -- affords us the same degree of autonomy. And when driving is coupled with a seemingly endless stretch of road before us, it really conveys a sense of exploration and adventure. The beauty of it is that the adventure is relatively risk-free; unlike, say, the adventure of hiking throught he Amazon rainforest, or trekking across the Antarctic.
What I don't quite understand -- and this may very well be due to my low tolerance for the bohemian lifestyle -- is how one can travel across the country with no income and little reserve cash. Driving is expensive. Restaurants, hotels, gasoline ... and the threat of one's car breaking down looms constantly. (Although back in the 1950's the automobile was a considerably less sophisticated machine than it is now. Back then, virtually any "shade tree mechanic" could fix most problems. Today? It takes a special tool just to check the oil.)
One of the things I discovered during this trip across the United States is that this is a strikingly diverse and beautiful country. In the three days I traveled, I drove from the mountains of western North Carolina, across the rolling hills of western Tennessee, over the incredibly flat plains of eastern Arkansas (which produces lots of rice, I determined), down into the vast stretches of Texas, across the high plateau regions of west Texas and New Mexico, and finally down into the Sonoran desert of southeastern Arizona. God truly has blessed this nation. It's a shame we don't feel the gratitude we should.
I came no where near Route 66. There really is such a road. It is not a super-highway like our other "Interstate" roads (that's where the "I" comes from in highway names like I-40, I-95, I-75, I-30 and I-10). Route 66 was a road constructed prior to the Interstate system, and it stretched from the east coast all the way to the west. The book "On the Road" was published in 1957, and was likely written in 1955 or 1956. The act of Congress that initiated the construction of the Interstate system was from about that time frame. So it's likely that Kerouac didn't have access to any freeways as we know them today.
Notes: One can still see residual from the pre-freeway days ... motels dotted along what are now just roads, but off the freeway path. Typically those motels are not of the chain variety, and often are quite run down. I often think about the people who stay in those motels, and the people who operate them. There's a story there, though I don't have the energy to persue it. Also, interesting fact: the Interstate System in the United States was advocated by President Eisenhower, and he shrouded the whole thing in "national defense" terminology to insure its passage. In hindsight, it was a brilliant strategic move -- few things have contributed more to the economic development of this country than our super-highway system. Ironically, such a construction project would be virtually impossible today -- too many special interest groups would decry the cost, the environmental impact, the "discrimination" of both running a freeway near some area and, simultaneously, the discrimination of not running the freeway near some area.
All in all, I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for shepherding me and my automobile across 2000+ miles and delivering me safely home.
* * *
Change of subject. I was listening to a tape series called "Jesus Among Other Gods," by Ravi Zacharia, and he used a piece of logic to attempt to dispel the idea that all religions are equally true. His logic went, if I recall correctly:
If all religions are equally true, then it can be said that a religion that professed those religions to be false would also be true. That then renders the original religions simultaneously true and false at the same time.My question is this: what's your take on that logical construct? Does it hold up? Or is there a hole in it somewhere?
Note: I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode (the original series -- still the best) where the crew from the Enterprise is a planet populated by Harcourt Fenton Mudd and his androids. All the androids were gorgeous 1960's go-go girl beauties, and carried number tags around their necks. One male android existed: Norman, tag number 1. The female androids had the capacity for basic problem resolution, but required help from Norman for more complex problems. One of the strategies employed by Kirk and Spock was to overwhelm Norman by presenting the female androids with a series of complex and contradictory things. Spock: "You are like a beautiful flower that smells very bad." The thing that finally made Norman overheat was the logical construction offered by Kirk: "Listen very carefully, Norman: everything I say is a lie." Norman then tried to piece together the circular nature of that: "If everything you say is a lie, then what you just said is a lie, which means everything you say must be true ... "
Jack Kerouac
From his seminal work "On The Road" (hey am I allowed to use the word "seminal" in a blog?)
Whee. Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there.
Apparently this beatnik tome influenced a generation so I'm devouring your travel updates with relish. Did you ever read it? Keep going buddy!
Current Song: "Letter to Hermione" -- David Bowie
Whee. Sal, we gotta go and never stop going till we get there.
Apparently this beatnik tome influenced a generation so I'm devouring your travel updates with relish. Did you ever read it? Keep going buddy!
Current Song: "Letter to Hermione" -- David Bowie
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Deep in the Heart of Texas ...
... and beyond, actually. Today I made 900+ miles and got to Las Cruces, New Mexico. Texas is one very big state. And Texas from Abeliene to Pecos is just dreadful. But past that, it opened up into this gloriously beautiful vista that was breathtaking.
I've done 1,700 miles in two days; 2,200 miles since the start of the trip.
I don't think I want to be a truck driver.
:-)
I've done 1,700 miles in two days; 2,200 miles since the start of the trip.
I don't think I want to be a truck driver.
:-)
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Small Blessings, Gratitude, and 800 miles
I'm in Texarkana, Texas tonight. I made it all the way from Asheville, North Carolina in one day -- 800 miles. That leaves me about 1200 miles to Tucson, near as I can figure. My car has been behaving well ... I had the muffler checked out in Asheville and structurally it's fine. The mechanic plugged the sensor back into the rusted hole of the catalytic converter and darned if it's not still there, 800 miles later. Car sounds great, runs great ... I am quite thankful for that.
Last night I prayed for a good night's sleep, safe travels and a renewed awareness of my dependence on God for all things, big and small. I slept like a baby, and made it here without incident. Sometimes I wonder if things like the muffler incident aren't sent my way as a gentle reminder to me to start looking to the Lord each day, every day rather than only in times of stress. I stand convicted of relying on myself too often.
Current song: I've been listening to a series by R.C. Sproul on Growing in the Christian Faith. It's wonderful.
I would guess Lisa would like to be on this trip ... but I don't think she'd enjoy the 800 miles (12 hard hours) thing. She'd want to stop at every Dairy Queen along the way! :-)
Last night I prayed for a good night's sleep, safe travels and a renewed awareness of my dependence on God for all things, big and small. I slept like a baby, and made it here without incident. Sometimes I wonder if things like the muffler incident aren't sent my way as a gentle reminder to me to start looking to the Lord each day, every day rather than only in times of stress. I stand convicted of relying on myself too often.
Current song: I've been listening to a series by R.C. Sproul on Growing in the Christian Faith. It's wonderful.
I would guess Lisa would like to be on this trip ... but I don't think she'd enjoy the 800 miles (12 hard hours) thing. She'd want to stop at every Dairy Queen along the way! :-)
Take Me Home Country Road
At the risk of breaking the remit of this blog, I instant-messaged (ok I realise that I am inventing verbs) with the lovely Mrs. Bagwell yesterday evening and she is missing you -- I surmise that she wants to be with you on the long drive across the USA my good buddy.
Plus I have a standing invite to your new pad :-)
A damn fine song I might add.
Current song: "Take Me Home Country Road" -- John Denver
Plus I have a standing invite to your new pad :-)
A damn fine song I might add.
Current song: "Take Me Home Country Road" -- John Denver
Monday, February 21, 2005
On the Road
I'm in Asheville, North Carolina now ... at the home of my cousin. I'll have limited access to the Internet over the next four or so days. I am drafting a response to the Beatitudes ... but am not yet ready to post it.
I pray that I am safely delivered to Tucson, and that my car survives the trip. The muffler has developed a hole and makes quite a racket. The car is still mechanically viable (I think), but it sure is embarrassing when I pull into McDonald's! :-)
I pray that I am safely delivered to Tucson, and that my car survives the trip. The muffler has developed a hole and makes quite a racket. The car is still mechanically viable (I think), but it sure is embarrassing when I pull into McDonald's! :-)
Friday, February 18, 2005
The Beatitudes
Were you made to memorize them as a kid?
Out of interest, Eugene Peterson, a "Professor of Spiritual Theology" at Regent College in Vancouver, has translated the New Testament into "contemporary language". Here are a few of the rewritten beatitudes:
Out of interest, Eugene Peterson, a "Professor of Spiritual Theology" at Regent College in Vancouver, has translated the New Testament into "contemporary language". Here are a few of the rewritten beatitudes:
- You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you, there is more of God and his rule
- You're blessed when you feel you've lost that which is most dear to you. Only then can you be embraced by the one that should be most dear to you
- You're blessed when you're content with just who you are. That's the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can't be bought.
- You're blessed when you've worked up a good appetite for God. He's food and drink in the best meal you'll ever eat.
- You're blessed when you care. At the moment of being "care-full", you'll find yourselves cared for. You're blessed when you get your inside world - your mind and heart - put right. Then you can see God in the outside world
I guess your 2,500 mile trip is not so onerous being a colonial? Is it true what they say? .. "The difference between an Englishman and an American: One thinks that 100 miles is a long way and the other thinks that 100 years is a long time"
No song: kids are in residence.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Point I Was Trying to Make ...
What I was trying to say was that the claims made in the Gospel narrative demand acceptance or rejection. If one accepts the narrative, then the implications are inescapably life altering. If one rejects the narrative, then one must reject it -- including Jesus himself.
Note: Yes, I suppose it's possible to ignore it. In much the same way I ignore virtually everything related to quantum theory. It may very well have profound effects on my existence, but I spend my life without effort extended to explore the topic. That's what most people do with the Gospel, I assume.
But for the person who seriously approaches the Gospel, there is a stark decision -- the resurrected Jesus is either true (with all the implications that come with that), or false. And for the person who determines the narrative is false, the burden is on that person to offer a rational reason for the conclusion. Explain then the empty tomb. Explain then the willingness to die for a known lie. Explain then the profound history-altering effect of Christianity.
Perhaps I spoke rashly when I suggested that a serious evaluation of the Gospel will yield only one sensible conclusion. It was born from a general frustration with people who wish to claim certain benefits from Jesus -- his beatitudes, for instance, though taken from their context and drained of their true meaning -- yet refuse (the conscious act of will) to address the stark decision laid bare in the Bible. That is C. S. Lewis' formulation: Jesus is either liar, lunatic ... or Lord. Make your choice, people.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across strong here ... two reasons: 1) I'm tired, having spent 12 hours total time to go from Tucson to Washington, D.C., and 2) thinking about all the silly conversations I've had with people who use the "Jesus was a good teacher" line but then turn their ears off to any further discussion of it. That's where the "conscious act of will" line came from.
Note: Plus, absent the spiritual and supernatural elements of his teaching, sayings like "The meek shall inherit the earth" are plain silly. Of course they won't. And "Blessed are the meek?" How so, Mr. or Miss. Secular Humanist? They are generally trodden upon quite severely. "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Nice little bromide ... but nobody really believes it or follows it, particularly when one's neighbor is a pain in the ***.
(I told you I don't make a good apologist ... )
Note: Yes, I suppose it's possible to ignore it. In much the same way I ignore virtually everything related to quantum theory. It may very well have profound effects on my existence, but I spend my life without effort extended to explore the topic. That's what most people do with the Gospel, I assume.
But for the person who seriously approaches the Gospel, there is a stark decision -- the resurrected Jesus is either true (with all the implications that come with that), or false. And for the person who determines the narrative is false, the burden is on that person to offer a rational reason for the conclusion. Explain then the empty tomb. Explain then the willingness to die for a known lie. Explain then the profound history-altering effect of Christianity.
Perhaps I spoke rashly when I suggested that a serious evaluation of the Gospel will yield only one sensible conclusion. It was born from a general frustration with people who wish to claim certain benefits from Jesus -- his beatitudes, for instance, though taken from their context and drained of their true meaning -- yet refuse (the conscious act of will) to address the stark decision laid bare in the Bible. That is C. S. Lewis' formulation: Jesus is either liar, lunatic ... or Lord. Make your choice, people.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across strong here ... two reasons: 1) I'm tired, having spent 12 hours total time to go from Tucson to Washington, D.C., and 2) thinking about all the silly conversations I've had with people who use the "Jesus was a good teacher" line but then turn their ears off to any further discussion of it. That's where the "conscious act of will" line came from.
Note: Plus, absent the spiritual and supernatural elements of his teaching, sayings like "The meek shall inherit the earth" are plain silly. Of course they won't. And "Blessed are the meek?" How so, Mr. or Miss. Secular Humanist? They are generally trodden upon quite severely. "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Nice little bromide ... but nobody really believes it or follows it, particularly when one's neighbor is a pain in the ***.
(I told you I don't make a good apologist ... )
The opposite of sensible is just plain silly
I was nodding my head until I read:
"I fully understand the temptation to not believe the Gospel narrative. But I believe it's an conscious act of will to not believe it. Because a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the facts that are on the table leads a sensible person to conclude that the events as portrayed are true."
Such a statement is fighting talk and will lead to wars.
It goes like this:
"Hey Mr. Jewish/Hindu/Muslim/Sikh person".
"Yeah?"
"You really want to believe in Christianity but you are forcing yourself not to, plus you are not sensible".
And now the six o'clock news. Today 100 Christians were lynched by a bunch of silly people.
I believe that there are better ways. I can only assume that you were joking.
I think that I would find a 2,500 mile journey across the United States (even in an 1995 Nissan) quite exciting.
Peace & happiness Brother.
Current song: "Dumb" -- Nirvana
"I fully understand the temptation to not believe the Gospel narrative. But I believe it's an conscious act of will to not believe it. Because a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the facts that are on the table leads a sensible person to conclude that the events as portrayed are true."
Such a statement is fighting talk and will lead to wars.
It goes like this:
"Hey Mr. Jewish/Hindu/Muslim/Sikh person".
"Yeah?"
"You really want to believe in Christianity but you are forcing yourself not to, plus you are not sensible".
And now the six o'clock news. Today 100 Christians were lynched by a bunch of silly people.
I believe that there are better ways. I can only assume that you were joking.
I think that I would find a 2,500 mile journey across the United States (even in an 1995 Nissan) quite exciting.
Peace & happiness Brother.
Current song: "Dumb" -- Nirvana
On the Road Again ...
I'll be somewhat "out of pocket" today (Thursday, the 17th) and then again starting Saturday the 19th through the entire following week. I will be driving the 2,500 miles from Annapolis, Maryland to Tucson, Arizona in a 10-year-old Nissan Altima with 150,000 miles on it! But it's been a great car with few troubles, so I'm hoping for the next week or so it will continue to be.
Take care, brother deep.thought. The Lord is with you.
Take care, brother deep.thought. The Lord is with you.
The Purpose of Election
I suppose one could argue that the reason God chose to reveal his doctrine of the elect is that removes yet another element of human effort from the equation. If indeed I am one of the elect, then I can take no pride in my effort in achieving that. However, it's quiet easy to take pride in the mere fact of election. Which is where, I feel, many smug Christians find themselves -- thinking they're somehow special because of their believed election, they lord it over those they feel are not. That engenders antipathy towards the smug Christian and Christianity in general.
Properly understood -- which is no small feat, mind you -- the doctrine of election should make a Christian extremely humble. Here I am, a miserable sinner, without merit in the eyes of God, selected nonetheless for salvation by a merciful Creator. What did I do to deserve this? Nothing. What should be my response? Immense and everlasting gratitude, praise and worship.
There are many challenges and difficulties that swirl around in my mind regarding the doctrine of the elect. I choose at this point in my life to simply set that doctrine aside. Perhaps one day I will come to understand and accept it better. For now, it is a stumbling block.
Note: it is things like this that Alistair Begg was referring to when he said, "Don't worry about the things you don't understand; worry about the things you do understand." I don't understand the doctrine of the elect. Really, I don't. I could obsess over it and allow my lack of understanding to draw me away from the more basic elements of spiritual obedience. Or I stop thinking about it and focus rather on Jesus.
* * *
As for the C.S. Lewis argument regarding making a choice about Jesus based on an evaluation of his claims set in stark relief ... there are some who don't believe because they won't believe. At that point there's little you or I can do, other than present an example of a humble and obedient follower of Christ.
"If one doesn't believe The Bible then Christ can indeed be ignored." -- You bet, including beloved things like "Blessed are the peacemakers" and the rest of the things people hold up as evidence of Jesus being a special teacher or all-around good chap. How do we know that? If the Bible isn't to be believed, how do we even know that he existed? Or that he wasn't really an awful charlatan? I don't see any way to accept a portion of the Bible's portrayal of Jesus without accepting the whole of it. On what basis does one select only those parts they wish to select?
At that point the counter-argument is usually that there are many part of the Bible they feel can be rightly dismissed. The Book of Genesis, for instance. Or the account of Jonah and the fish. Or whatever. Fair enough. But we're talking about here is a relatively thin slice of the Bible, and the account of one man. Cherry-picking within that sub-section becomes less supportable.
"We believe that he did live, was a good preacher, but was hyped up by people who wanted to make money out of keeping the masses in line." This argument falls apart on the face of it. First of all, shortly after the crucifixion, the 11 remaining disciples were locked in a room, fearful for their lives. 49 days later they were boldly preaching Christ resurrected. What was the origin of their faith? Why would people fearful for their lives suddenly become so emboldened?
Secondly, those who wrote the Gospels included some remarkable details that lends to the authenticity of the report. One of the most striking is the role of women in the narrative. At that time women were considered completely unreliable witnesses. They were not permitted to testify in courts of law. Yet right there in the middle of the post-crucifixion story is an incredibly prominent role for women -- "the 11 disciples were huddled in a room, frightened for their lives. But the brave women went to the tomb and found it empty." What? That denigrates the male disciples and would serve to cast doubt on the witness because it was women who reported the empty tomb. To include women in such a role given the societal context at that time means the authors were either incredibly foolish ... or were writing the truth.
Third, what part of the Biblical message -- not the middle ages, corrupt Roman Catholic Church message, but the original Biblical message -- involves any "keeping the masses in line?" And for what benefit? And to whom would this benefit flow? The early message was fairly simple:
Fourth, if Peter and John and Stephen and Paul knew the message was built on a lie, why would they go out and get themselves killed for it? Particularly since there was no personal gain to be had by preaching the message. Some counter-argue that people often follow a leader or a message to their death -- witness the various cults. But we're not talking about people who come later and are persuaded by the false message; we're talking about people who authored the false message. Name me one example in history where someone knowingly and deceitfully fabricated a lie, then was willing to go out and die for that lie.
Deep breath. Breathe in ... breathe out.
I fully understand the temptation to not believe the Gospel narrative. But I believe it's an conscious act of will to not believe it. Because a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the facts that are on the table leads a sensible person to conclude that the events as portrayed are true. And that's where C.S. Lewis's argument comes in -- if true, then it is of incredible significance.
To those who choose not to believe ... well, what can be done about them?
Nothing. Pray for them. "Treat them as you wish to be treated." Love them even when they mock you because of your faith.
Properly understood -- which is no small feat, mind you -- the doctrine of election should make a Christian extremely humble. Here I am, a miserable sinner, without merit in the eyes of God, selected nonetheless for salvation by a merciful Creator. What did I do to deserve this? Nothing. What should be my response? Immense and everlasting gratitude, praise and worship.
There are many challenges and difficulties that swirl around in my mind regarding the doctrine of the elect. I choose at this point in my life to simply set that doctrine aside. Perhaps one day I will come to understand and accept it better. For now, it is a stumbling block.
Note: it is things like this that Alistair Begg was referring to when he said, "Don't worry about the things you don't understand; worry about the things you do understand." I don't understand the doctrine of the elect. Really, I don't. I could obsess over it and allow my lack of understanding to draw me away from the more basic elements of spiritual obedience. Or I stop thinking about it and focus rather on Jesus.
* * *
As for the C.S. Lewis argument regarding making a choice about Jesus based on an evaluation of his claims set in stark relief ... there are some who don't believe because they won't believe. At that point there's little you or I can do, other than present an example of a humble and obedient follower of Christ.
"If one doesn't believe The Bible then Christ can indeed be ignored." -- You bet, including beloved things like "Blessed are the peacemakers" and the rest of the things people hold up as evidence of Jesus being a special teacher or all-around good chap. How do we know that? If the Bible isn't to be believed, how do we even know that he existed? Or that he wasn't really an awful charlatan? I don't see any way to accept a portion of the Bible's portrayal of Jesus without accepting the whole of it. On what basis does one select only those parts they wish to select?
At that point the counter-argument is usually that there are many part of the Bible they feel can be rightly dismissed. The Book of Genesis, for instance. Or the account of Jonah and the fish. Or whatever. Fair enough. But we're talking about here is a relatively thin slice of the Bible, and the account of one man. Cherry-picking within that sub-section becomes less supportable.
"We believe that he did live, was a good preacher, but was hyped up by people who wanted to make money out of keeping the masses in line." This argument falls apart on the face of it. First of all, shortly after the crucifixion, the 11 remaining disciples were locked in a room, fearful for their lives. 49 days later they were boldly preaching Christ resurrected. What was the origin of their faith? Why would people fearful for their lives suddenly become so emboldened?
Secondly, those who wrote the Gospels included some remarkable details that lends to the authenticity of the report. One of the most striking is the role of women in the narrative. At that time women were considered completely unreliable witnesses. They were not permitted to testify in courts of law. Yet right there in the middle of the post-crucifixion story is an incredibly prominent role for women -- "the 11 disciples were huddled in a room, frightened for their lives. But the brave women went to the tomb and found it empty." What? That denigrates the male disciples and would serve to cast doubt on the witness because it was women who reported the empty tomb. To include women in such a role given the societal context at that time means the authors were either incredibly foolish ... or were writing the truth.
Third, what part of the Biblical message -- not the middle ages, corrupt Roman Catholic Church message, but the original Biblical message -- involves any "keeping the masses in line?" And for what benefit? And to whom would this benefit flow? The early message was fairly simple:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:37-38, NIV)That later generations of sinful man took that message and corrupted it for their own personal gain is a separate issue. But the original message provides little in the way of personal gain for those who wrote the Gospels. The Bible speaks of none of the original disciples as men of means. More commonly, they were quite poor.
Fourth, if Peter and John and Stephen and Paul knew the message was built on a lie, why would they go out and get themselves killed for it? Particularly since there was no personal gain to be had by preaching the message. Some counter-argue that people often follow a leader or a message to their death -- witness the various cults. But we're not talking about people who come later and are persuaded by the false message; we're talking about people who authored the false message. Name me one example in history where someone knowingly and deceitfully fabricated a lie, then was willing to go out and die for that lie.
Deep breath. Breathe in ... breathe out.
I fully understand the temptation to not believe the Gospel narrative. But I believe it's an conscious act of will to not believe it. Because a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the facts that are on the table leads a sensible person to conclude that the events as portrayed are true. And that's where C.S. Lewis's argument comes in -- if true, then it is of incredible significance.
To those who choose not to believe ... well, what can be done about them?
Nothing. Pray for them. "Treat them as you wish to be treated." Love them even when they mock you because of your faith.
Are We God's Elect?
Thank you for usual deeply insightful commentary on Pascal's Wager/Gambit. I think you've pulled out a key point when you say that the wager does not take into account the true cost of making the bet.
The God's Elect issue is a tough one. It's mentioned all over the place, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls (http://www.openscrolls.org/4q534.html).
I guess, as I mentioned before, that the word "before" doesn't mean anything to one who is outside of the timeline. So if God sees all of time at once, it is hardly surprising that he knows who will make it to Heaven and who will go to the other place, before we are born. The tricky point is that He has chosen some and not others.
Now whether this is true or not, we cannot know. But we can discuss why this particular part of the doctrine was revealed to us. I mean, God could have kept this election business a secret but didn't. And, thinking about it, there is a benefit to The Believer in knowing that he or she is elect. I think it is similar to how cults like the Davidians and the Moonies work, by making you feel special. Christianity at some point would have been a cult (but is certainly not now of course!)
The discussion in my head goes something like: "If I am "Elect" then I am very glad that I've been chosen by God to go to Heaven. If, on the other hand, you have not been chosen to go to Heaven then you are not one of the elect and I am sorry for you (but it's your own fault really). God elected me and not you so I must be better than you in some way."
This gives the cultist a good reason to stay in the cult and to hold strong during the hard times of eventual persecution.
Now, I tried that Staples argument ("one can't ignore Jesus") on some friends and got blown away. In fact, your post was better than the book because to start with you list three options, you allow the fraud option -- that Jesus might have been lying. So I tried the three options on my buddies:
1. Jesus was telling the truth so you cannot ignore him
2. Jesus was a nutcase, don't tell me he was a good preacher and all round good chap
3. Jesus was lying, for power reasons (I mean what a legacy!) So don't tell me he was a good preacher and all round good chap
The answer came back:
"We believe Jesus was a good preacher and all round good chap"
So my response was:
"What, how can you not follow mine and Staples logic??"
And their response was:
"Oh, we don't believe what The Bible reports actually happened. That is how we ignore Christ. We believe that he did live, was a good preacher, but was hyped up by people who wanted to make money out of keeping the masses in line. I mean c'mon, you believe The Bible? Just look at Genesis".
I gave all the usual arguments about Jesus' life being well documented, why would someone do this etc, but they were not having it. So their point is, one has to believe that the Bible is telling the events as they happened .... and with The Bible there is a lot of room for doubt. If one doesn't believe The Bible then Christ can indeed be ignored. I myself read (pronounced "reed") the Gospels thinking, did this really happen? I mean John wasn't there when Jesus was talking to Pilot etc.
So I think people ignore Christ because they don't believe that The Bible is accurately portraying past events. They are not elect. Perhaps being "elect" really means being one of God's creations that has the power, the capacity, to believe that The Bible does accurately represent the past?
One day we'll find out, until then, we have to have Faith :-)
Current song: "Faith" -- George Michael
The God's Elect issue is a tough one. It's mentioned all over the place, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls (http://www.openscrolls.org/4q534.html).
I guess, as I mentioned before, that the word "before" doesn't mean anything to one who is outside of the timeline. So if God sees all of time at once, it is hardly surprising that he knows who will make it to Heaven and who will go to the other place, before we are born. The tricky point is that He has chosen some and not others.
Now whether this is true or not, we cannot know. But we can discuss why this particular part of the doctrine was revealed to us. I mean, God could have kept this election business a secret but didn't. And, thinking about it, there is a benefit to The Believer in knowing that he or she is elect. I think it is similar to how cults like the Davidians and the Moonies work, by making you feel special. Christianity at some point would have been a cult (but is certainly not now of course!)
The discussion in my head goes something like: "If I am "Elect" then I am very glad that I've been chosen by God to go to Heaven. If, on the other hand, you have not been chosen to go to Heaven then you are not one of the elect and I am sorry for you (but it's your own fault really). God elected me and not you so I must be better than you in some way."
This gives the cultist a good reason to stay in the cult and to hold strong during the hard times of eventual persecution.
Now, I tried that Staples argument ("one can't ignore Jesus") on some friends and got blown away. In fact, your post was better than the book because to start with you list three options, you allow the fraud option -- that Jesus might have been lying. So I tried the three options on my buddies:
1. Jesus was telling the truth so you cannot ignore him
2. Jesus was a nutcase, don't tell me he was a good preacher and all round good chap
3. Jesus was lying, for power reasons (I mean what a legacy!) So don't tell me he was a good preacher and all round good chap
The answer came back:
"We believe Jesus was a good preacher and all round good chap"
So my response was:
"What, how can you not follow mine and Staples logic??"
And their response was:
"Oh, we don't believe what The Bible reports actually happened. That is how we ignore Christ. We believe that he did live, was a good preacher, but was hyped up by people who wanted to make money out of keeping the masses in line. I mean c'mon, you believe The Bible? Just look at Genesis".
I gave all the usual arguments about Jesus' life being well documented, why would someone do this etc, but they were not having it. So their point is, one has to believe that the Bible is telling the events as they happened .... and with The Bible there is a lot of room for doubt. If one doesn't believe The Bible then Christ can indeed be ignored. I myself read (pronounced "reed") the Gospels thinking, did this really happen? I mean John wasn't there when Jesus was talking to Pilot etc.
So I think people ignore Christ because they don't believe that The Bible is accurately portraying past events. They are not elect. Perhaps being "elect" really means being one of God's creations that has the power, the capacity, to believe that The Bible does accurately represent the past?
One day we'll find out, until then, we have to have Faith :-)
Current song: "Faith" -- George Michael
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Completely Worthless ... or Infinitely Important
I'm going to approach Pascal's Gambit two ways: one is by assessing the logical argument made, leaving aside issues of faith and theology; the other is to consider its merits as a mechanism by which to draw people to Jesus Christ.
As A Logical Argument
* * *
With regard to the individual on ICU ... it is a true shame when someone carries the name of Jesus Christ on his lips, yet does not show the face of Christ in his actions and deeds. Such people do more damage to the Kingdom than those who are simply evil. It is a shame.
As A Logical Argument
I'm left somewhat unpersuaded by the line of reasoning. First of all, I'm not sure the initial premise is supportable. I'm no expert in comparative religions, but to say that no other faith tradition offers offers a version of a blissful afterlife doesn't quite ring true.As A Mechanism To Draw People to Christ
Second, if the probability of the existence of the Christian God is unknown, that necessarily means it ranges from 0% to 100%. That's important because choosing something based on an expected return is dependent upon as assessment -- if not the certainty -- of the probable outcome.
Third, this argument leaves out the detrimental effects in this lifetime of being a follower of Jesus. The Bible is very clear that there will be a cost in this life. Sometimes it takes the form of considerable sacrifice; sometimes it takes the form of persecution. At a minimum, following Christ involves surrending one's freedom to freely do as one chooses. This is critical because what people are weighing in their minds is the certainty of cost now versus the unknown probability of reward later. It's my belief that very thing prevents more people from coming to Christ than any other. We are a selfish lot, deep.thought, with a real taste for near-term gratification.
Bullets four and five are really suggesting a calculation in one's mind of the expected outcome. Implicit in the argument, I think, is that the assessment of the probability of the Christian God's existence is something greater than 0%. The higher the number goes, the greater weight of the argument. However, bullet two states that the probability is unknown. Therefore, it's equally as likely to be 0% -- or very low -- as it is anything else. And if zero, and if given the cost of professing allegiance to this Christian God whose existence is of probability unknown, then the tradeoff favors rejecting the Christian God.
The line of reasoning leaves out what is perhaps the single most common choice people make -- to neither embrace or reject, but rather to ignore. It is not logical, but it is prevalent. The reasoning being, I suppose, is that some clemency will be granted those who profess ignorance later.
As for the last bullet, I believe it requires at a minimum an intentional act of will to come to faith in Christ. I think what the last point is getting at is whether one can rationally arrive at a point of belief. I think the answer is "Almost, but not entirely." I do not believe true faith in Christ is completely rational. First, it involves at least some degree of belief in the unknowable. I suppose that could be defined as "irrational." Second, and more important, true faith in Christ is a gift from God, not something we can achieve on our own, apart from God's initial act of calling us.
Note: you want a Bible topic that'll stir up more debate and emotion than even the Book of Job? Talk about predestination and the doctrine of the elect. The notion that God has from before time chosen who he will save and who he will not is a troubling one to embrace.
Within this context I am not a fan of "Pascal's Gambit." It's not that I reject the idea of rational analysis of the authenticity or sufficiency of the Bible, or of the critical evaluation of the claims of Christ. Rather, I do not favor the punative flavor of the argument. It puts people on the defensive.That's my take ... for what it's worth.
I much prefer a form of Christian witness where our comportment, our demeanor, our actions and our deeds suggest something strikingly different and compelling from the surrounding society. Personally, I think there are few more compelling displays (to unbelieving men) than an intelligent man, displaying strength of conviction in Jesus, and doing so with a demonstrably humble heart. That'll make a man who is seeking sit up and take notice.
And then the rational analysis of the Christian claim can be pursued.
There's a close cousin of "Pascal's Gambit" in something C.S. Lewis once wrote. Essentially his formulation was this: when considering Jesus, one must not avoid the stark claims Jesus made about himself. Because if Jesus was not who he claimed to be -- that is, the Son of God, God incarnate, the promised Messiah -- then we can rightly dismiss Jesus as a fraud, or worse, a mad man. On the other hand, if Jesus was who he claimed to be ... then the matter becomes of infinite importance. Because if true, then what we have is the very Creator of the Universe, incarnate and on this earth, instructing us on how to achieve eternal salvation.
That formulation doesn't attempt to logically argue to any given conclusion. Rather, it seems to simply set the alternatives in stark detail. That is, in my mind, a critically important thing because, as I mentioned earlier, for many people a third option is one they strive for -- complete avoidance of the issue. Unfortunately, Jesus didn't really leave that option open. Ultimately -- perhaps not in this lifetime -- we must face the stark choice -- Jesus is God, or Jesus was a nutcase.
Note: at this point many people say, "Why can't we just consider Jesus a good teacher, or another prophet?" Because good teachers or good prophets do not claim that, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Or "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!'" (John 8:58, making reference to Exodus 3:14).
* * *
With regard to the individual on ICU ... it is a true shame when someone carries the name of Jesus Christ on his lips, yet does not show the face of Christ in his actions and deeds. Such people do more damage to the Kingdom than those who are simply evil. It is a shame.
Pascal's Wager
You made a beautiful last post my friend :-) Stay that Christian and never become like the racist who goes by the name of "KingJehu" with whom I have just had the dubious pleasure of talking to on IRC. One should not be concerned if a Muslim is killed apparently. Grrrr. I know you will.
Yes, the times I have ignored my conscience have usually not worked out well and I have regretted them.
Changing tact:
Pascal's wager is posed to someone trying to choose between belief in the Christian God and belief in no god. It makes the following assumptions:
Yes, the times I have ignored my conscience have usually not worked out well and I have regretted them.
Changing tact:
Pascal's wager is posed to someone trying to choose between belief in the Christian God and belief in no god. It makes the following assumptions:
- The probability of the existence of other gods who offer infinite happiness is zero
- The probability of the existence of a Christian God is unknown
- If the Christian God exists, then unbelievers are excluded from infinite happiness
- Infinite happiness is better than any other outcome
- It is necessarily rational to choose the best outcome
- A rational act of will can lead to faith
Thoughts?
Current song: Once in a lifetime - Talking Heads
The Complicating Effect of Sovereignty
I think I'm getting a better sense of where the thrust of your argument is. It appears to be rooted in the doctrine of God's complete sovereignty, or perhaps more precisely, his perfect self-sufficiency. God needs nothing. Nothing can affect, influence, change, impact, or disuade God.
That is a good doctrine, and a good doctrine to hold tight to.
But it yields a valid conclusion, one I think you've reached: God is not affected by our sin. Granting that he is affected by our sin diminishes his sovereignty, and affords us a small sliver of our own. And that can't be, provided one holds to the original doctrine of complete sovereignty of God.
For my part, I'm willing to concede that God is not affected by our sin. I'm not ready to concede that he's not concerned. "Worried" is not the word I was reaching for when I selected "concerned." What I was trying to convey was that the Bible clearly directs us to seek God and avoid sin. There must be a reason why God has chosen to communicate so clearly the consuming nature of sin avoidance in our lives.
Example: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (NIV, Matthew 5:29-30). Very likely not meant to be taken literally, this passage provides a graphic and powerful image of the measures we must consider to avoid sin in our lives.
* * *
As for the "Thou Shalt not Kill" vs. "Thou Shalt not Murder" debate, it is useful to go to blueletterbible.org and see the original Hebrew, which was "ratsach" (Strong's 07523). By my reading of it, it appears that's a primitive root. And the usage of the root in other parts of the Bible suggest that "murder" is the more common meaning. There appears to be a suggestion of intent with the purpose of revenge. So I do not believe the original Hebrew of the commandment broadly prohibited the taking of life.
* * *
Now, on to the ending question, which I paraphrase here: "Why did God create us -- for his benefit or ours?"
Here I must speculate, for I can't know the mind of God. But I am of the belief that the act was purely altruistic. And, interestingly enough, my thinking on this subject starts with the Trinity.
Note: I recall speaking once with a pastor of a church, and we were talking about those elements of the Christian doctrine we felt were the critical cornerstones. This pastor commented that as he matures in the faith, he is coming to understand the true importance of the Trinity. It's a complex and mysterious doctrine, but it is fundamental to Christianity.
For all eternity, God has existed as three distinct "persons" within a single "Godhead." One God, one essence, three personalities ... deep mystery. We are to understand that there is and always has been a deep, personal communion -- a love -- that exists between the members of the Trinity. Given that God is perfect, that love is perfect.
Note: "Perfect" is a difficult word to really grasp, isn't it? Imagine love as we know it, improved to infinity.
I believe the angels were created so they could experience the joy and glory that is the love that exists between the members of the Trinity. In that sense, God created the angels so he could share -- or give -- that love to others.
In the same way I believe we were created so we could experience and enjoy the joy and glory that is the love of God.
An act of pure and perfect altruism ... just like Christ on the Cross was a pure and perfect altruistic act, done out of his perfect love without regard to any benefit he himself might derive.
This might be why God has commanded us not to sin ... or not to disobey him. For one of the things sin does -- and I know this from personal experience -- is that it separates us from God. It's not that he leaves us; it's that by sinning we ourselves can't draw close to him.
Honestly ... think about the times you've engaged in willful disobedience of what you know to be God's commandment to you. In that state of sinfulness, do you feel close to God? Do you have a clear conscience? Do you feel motivated to go to him with an open heart? I know for me the answer is a clear "no." When I willfully win, a dark cloud descends on my relationship with God. It's awful. It's only when I come to truly reject the sin that I have a sense of return to him.
However, when I am able to avoid the more egregious willful sinning that plagues me, and I start to draw nearer to him, there is a profound sense of his presence about me. I'm certain that God is unchanged by my presence or absence; but I am clearly changed. I clearly benefit.
So I think the answer to the question about why we were created is just this -- God wished others to share in the Glory that is the love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
This is what I think is meant when God says that he is a "jealous" God -- not jealousy in the flawed human sense of the word. He is not himself jealous. He is jealous for us. He so wants his creation to benefit from his love and presence that he "yearns" (not literally) that we obey him so we can draw near to him.
Could he just "force" us to draw near? (The equivalent of invalidating free will.) Sure. But that would be akin to forcing a hug upon your daughter when she did not seek it. There's some value in it, but not nearly as much as when she comes to you with an open heart and clear conscience, when no dark cloud of disobedience hangs over your relationship. When she seeks you in love as her father, and you are there to give her the love she seeks, the experience for her must be near bliss. How much more the experience must be when we do the same with our heavenly Father.
That is a good doctrine, and a good doctrine to hold tight to.
But it yields a valid conclusion, one I think you've reached: God is not affected by our sin. Granting that he is affected by our sin diminishes his sovereignty, and affords us a small sliver of our own. And that can't be, provided one holds to the original doctrine of complete sovereignty of God.
For my part, I'm willing to concede that God is not affected by our sin. I'm not ready to concede that he's not concerned. "Worried" is not the word I was reaching for when I selected "concerned." What I was trying to convey was that the Bible clearly directs us to seek God and avoid sin. There must be a reason why God has chosen to communicate so clearly the consuming nature of sin avoidance in our lives.
Example: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (NIV, Matthew 5:29-30). Very likely not meant to be taken literally, this passage provides a graphic and powerful image of the measures we must consider to avoid sin in our lives.
* * *
As for the "Thou Shalt not Kill" vs. "Thou Shalt not Murder" debate, it is useful to go to blueletterbible.org and see the original Hebrew, which was "ratsach" (Strong's 07523). By my reading of it, it appears that's a primitive root. And the usage of the root in other parts of the Bible suggest that "murder" is the more common meaning. There appears to be a suggestion of intent with the purpose of revenge. So I do not believe the original Hebrew of the commandment broadly prohibited the taking of life.
* * *
Now, on to the ending question, which I paraphrase here: "Why did God create us -- for his benefit or ours?"
Here I must speculate, for I can't know the mind of God. But I am of the belief that the act was purely altruistic. And, interestingly enough, my thinking on this subject starts with the Trinity.
Note: I recall speaking once with a pastor of a church, and we were talking about those elements of the Christian doctrine we felt were the critical cornerstones. This pastor commented that as he matures in the faith, he is coming to understand the true importance of the Trinity. It's a complex and mysterious doctrine, but it is fundamental to Christianity.
For all eternity, God has existed as three distinct "persons" within a single "Godhead." One God, one essence, three personalities ... deep mystery. We are to understand that there is and always has been a deep, personal communion -- a love -- that exists between the members of the Trinity. Given that God is perfect, that love is perfect.
Note: "Perfect" is a difficult word to really grasp, isn't it? Imagine love as we know it, improved to infinity.
I believe the angels were created so they could experience the joy and glory that is the love that exists between the members of the Trinity. In that sense, God created the angels so he could share -- or give -- that love to others.
In the same way I believe we were created so we could experience and enjoy the joy and glory that is the love of God.
An act of pure and perfect altruism ... just like Christ on the Cross was a pure and perfect altruistic act, done out of his perfect love without regard to any benefit he himself might derive.
This might be why God has commanded us not to sin ... or not to disobey him. For one of the things sin does -- and I know this from personal experience -- is that it separates us from God. It's not that he leaves us; it's that by sinning we ourselves can't draw close to him.
Honestly ... think about the times you've engaged in willful disobedience of what you know to be God's commandment to you. In that state of sinfulness, do you feel close to God? Do you have a clear conscience? Do you feel motivated to go to him with an open heart? I know for me the answer is a clear "no." When I willfully win, a dark cloud descends on my relationship with God. It's awful. It's only when I come to truly reject the sin that I have a sense of return to him.
However, when I am able to avoid the more egregious willful sinning that plagues me, and I start to draw nearer to him, there is a profound sense of his presence about me. I'm certain that God is unchanged by my presence or absence; but I am clearly changed. I clearly benefit.
So I think the answer to the question about why we were created is just this -- God wished others to share in the Glory that is the love that exists between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
This is what I think is meant when God says that he is a "jealous" God -- not jealousy in the flawed human sense of the word. He is not himself jealous. He is jealous for us. He so wants his creation to benefit from his love and presence that he "yearns" (not literally) that we obey him so we can draw near to him.
Could he just "force" us to draw near? (The equivalent of invalidating free will.) Sure. But that would be akin to forcing a hug upon your daughter when she did not seek it. There's some value in it, but not nearly as much as when she comes to you with an open heart and clear conscience, when no dark cloud of disobedience hangs over your relationship. When she seeks you in love as her father, and you are there to give her the love she seeks, the experience for her must be near bliss. How much more the experience must be when we do the same with our heavenly Father.
God's impulse
Remember, I don't know anything about the Absolute Truth of the situation, I am just applying my errant flavour of logic and rationaility to the Christian Doctrine and God:
If God is not offended by our sin, nor angered by our sin, is it possible he's also not concerned about our sin?
Perhaps not. "Concern" suggests a worry about how something might affect us, or how things might turn out. This involves being in the timeline along with the rest of us and I am not prepared to admit that God is limited in this fashion.
Why would sin be bad for us?
I think that sin leads to loss of happiness, to pain, to war and death. I consider these things bad for us.
Does it follow that anything that is bad for us is therefore a sin?
Probably not. Depends how you define "bad". Some children may think that it's bad to learn mathematics. Attempting to do so causes them a loss of happiness. I don't think learning mathematics is a transgression of God's law (actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, I believe that there is a passage in the Bible somewhere where God warns man not to look closely at how he made the Universe -- and the Universe runs on numbers ...) so not a sin by the following definition ...
What exactly is sin?
We covered this in an earlier post and I think we agreed that it was a trangression of God's law. If one doesn't believe in God then one does not believe in sin. The question as you so rightly point out is the next one.
If the Bible is not to be believed, how do we know what things are sins and what things are not?
I believe the answer to this is that if you do not believe The Bible then it would be a good idea to avoid things that I believe God considers a "sin" by "treating others as you wish to be treated". A "sin" could be defined to an atheist in this fashion. "Hey Mr/Mrs. Atheist -- if you find that you are treating others in a manner that you yourself would not wish to be treated then you are sinning".
Note: this only works for 99% of humans. Masochists are one of the dead ends of natural selection. After all, there have been quite a few Darwin awards given out for these types.
As you know, I believe The Bible contains some fundamental truths, but I believe that it has been corrupted by men. Which is why I don't accept it 100% on faith. A simple example in the area we are discussing here; I believe God originally said:
"Thou shalt not kill"
And I believe that man changed this to:
"Thou shalt not murder"
I believe that man did this to suit his sinful nature, to allow war.
The interesting (to me) question that I am struggling with is:
"Assuming a God that sees the timeline in one go, that knows everything that is going to happen, and that doesn't need anything -- did He create us to benefit Him in any way? Or were we created entirely altruistically? Was it all done solely for us? Is there anything in it for Him?" I'd be interested in your opinion as always !
No song, the kids really don't like my music! It's half term (semester?) here in the UK and I have Wednesday and Friday off fulfilling my parental responsibilities role!
If God is not offended by our sin, nor angered by our sin, is it possible he's also not concerned about our sin?
Perhaps not. "Concern" suggests a worry about how something might affect us, or how things might turn out. This involves being in the timeline along with the rest of us and I am not prepared to admit that God is limited in this fashion.
Why would sin be bad for us?
I think that sin leads to loss of happiness, to pain, to war and death. I consider these things bad for us.
Does it follow that anything that is bad for us is therefore a sin?
Probably not. Depends how you define "bad". Some children may think that it's bad to learn mathematics. Attempting to do so causes them a loss of happiness. I don't think learning mathematics is a transgression of God's law (actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, I believe that there is a passage in the Bible somewhere where God warns man not to look closely at how he made the Universe -- and the Universe runs on numbers ...) so not a sin by the following definition ...
What exactly is sin?
We covered this in an earlier post and I think we agreed that it was a trangression of God's law. If one doesn't believe in God then one does not believe in sin. The question as you so rightly point out is the next one.
If the Bible is not to be believed, how do we know what things are sins and what things are not?
I believe the answer to this is that if you do not believe The Bible then it would be a good idea to avoid things that I believe God considers a "sin" by "treating others as you wish to be treated". A "sin" could be defined to an atheist in this fashion. "Hey Mr/Mrs. Atheist -- if you find that you are treating others in a manner that you yourself would not wish to be treated then you are sinning".
Note: this only works for 99% of humans. Masochists are one of the dead ends of natural selection. After all, there have been quite a few Darwin awards given out for these types.
As you know, I believe The Bible contains some fundamental truths, but I believe that it has been corrupted by men. Which is why I don't accept it 100% on faith. A simple example in the area we are discussing here; I believe God originally said:
"Thou shalt not kill"
And I believe that man changed this to:
"Thou shalt not murder"
I believe that man did this to suit his sinful nature, to allow war.
The interesting (to me) question that I am struggling with is:
"Assuming a God that sees the timeline in one go, that knows everything that is going to happen, and that doesn't need anything -- did He create us to benefit Him in any way? Or were we created entirely altruistically? Was it all done solely for us? Is there anything in it for Him?" I'd be interested in your opinion as always !
No song, the kids really don't like my music! It's half term (semester?) here in the UK and I have Wednesday and Friday off fulfilling my parental responsibilities role!
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Does God Possess Emotion At All?
This is a fascinating thread ... let me ask you a few things:
I disagree with your assessment that God made sin. That's a contradiction. How can bad come from a perfect good? God created Satan, to be sure, but God did not mandate that Satan exercise his free will to oppose God. Here we fall into the "God permits, but does not cause bad things to happen" argument.
* * *
For the record, I believe the definition of sin is simply "disobeying God's will." What is God's will? That we be perfectly obedient to him. Why would a creature possessing free will volunteer that free will back to God? Because if God is indeed perfectly good and perfectly holy and perfectly loving, then being obedient to him will be what's perfectly best for us. I believe it is only through our ability to reject God that we learn what a blessing it is to accept God. I feel that's the key to why God gave us free will. Not so that he could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance, but rather that we could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance. Were we created robots, we would never understand it.
- If God is not offended by our sin, nor angered by our sin, is it possible he's also not concerned about our sin?
- Why would sin be bad for us?
- Does it follow that anything that is bad for us is therefore a sin?
- What exactly is sin?
- If the Bible is not to be believed, how do we know what things are sins and what things are not?
I disagree with your assessment that God made sin. That's a contradiction. How can bad come from a perfect good? God created Satan, to be sure, but God did not mandate that Satan exercise his free will to oppose God. Here we fall into the "God permits, but does not cause bad things to happen" argument.
* * *
For the record, I believe the definition of sin is simply "disobeying God's will." What is God's will? That we be perfectly obedient to him. Why would a creature possessing free will volunteer that free will back to God? Because if God is indeed perfectly good and perfectly holy and perfectly loving, then being obedient to him will be what's perfectly best for us. I believe it is only through our ability to reject God that we learn what a blessing it is to accept God. I feel that's the key to why God gave us free will. Not so that he could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance, but rather that we could enjoy the benefit of our allegiance. Were we created robots, we would never understand it.
Sin is bad indeed
When I wrote:
I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created".
I hope you didn't think that I meant that sin was ok. It's bad for us, God knows this which is why he tells us not to do it. I believe it cannot hurt or offend him however, that's all.
I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created".
I hope you didn't think that I meant that sin was ok. It's bad for us, God knows this which is why he tells us not to do it. I believe it cannot hurt or offend him however, that's all.
Choose
Do you honestly believe that rationality and religion don't mix? By that, do you believe that one must completely suspend one's critical faculties to accept even the first piece of the faith puzzle?
I think so, I used to think that it is irrational to think that we were not architected. Rationally speaking, I am not so sure. It could be a failure of nerve or imagination.
Absent a rational framework of belief, what is left to believe in? The purely subjective?
One thing is for sure, we cannot trust our senses. We choose something to believe and settle upon it. Why do we have to believe that something to be rational? We have a number of religions to chose from, if we were born in Iraq we most probably would have chosen Islam.
Our beliefs are strong enough to survive any attack, like Job :-)
The omnipotence/free will/sin conundrum
If sin is a fact in our world, and our world is a result of God's perfect plan, does that mean that God created sin?
Of course. God created Satan too, knowing how Satan would turn out. Why he did that is up for grabs.
Or, put another way, what role does our free will play in the introduction of sin into our world. If God knew ahead of time that we would employ our free will to disobey, does that mean that we don't really have free will?
Our will is free from our own perspective yes. From God's perspective our will is not free because he knows what we are going to do, that is a quality of His omnipotence. I don't have a problem with this, my will is free to me, God just knows of the myriad of possibilities, which one I am going to pick before I pick it. In fact "before" is not really a word you can apply to God. That's what you get when you see all of time in one go.
Does the fact that an omniscient God would know ahead of time about our disobedience, does that make it any less an offense? If it does, then by extrapolating out to perfection does the offense go away?
I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created". I suspect that someone wants us to think that He is. I really don't know.
No current song as the girls are here, but that Chilli sounds scrumptious. I get your point.
Of course. God created Satan too, knowing how Satan would turn out. Why he did that is up for grabs.
Or, put another way, what role does our free will play in the introduction of sin into our world. If God knew ahead of time that we would employ our free will to disobey, does that mean that we don't really have free will?
Our will is free from our own perspective yes. From God's perspective our will is not free because he knows what we are going to do, that is a quality of His omnipotence. I don't have a problem with this, my will is free to me, God just knows of the myriad of possibilities, which one I am going to pick before I pick it. In fact "before" is not really a word you can apply to God. That's what you get when you see all of time in one go.
Does the fact that an omniscient God would know ahead of time about our disobedience, does that make it any less an offense? If it does, then by extrapolating out to perfection does the offense go away?
I don't think it is an offence to Him. I can't believe that God would say "I'm so offended by the thing that I created". I suspect that someone wants us to think that He is. I really don't know.
No current song as the girls are here, but that Chilli sounds scrumptious. I get your point.
Believe What?
You wrote:
"This is a rational discourse, rationality and religion don't mix. One doesn't need to bother re-drawing Ptolemys circles to make The Bible fit, one only needs to believe."Two questions:
- Do you honestly believe that rationality and religion don't mix? By that, do you believe that one must completely suspend one's critical faculties to accept even the first piece of the faith puzzle?
- Absent a rational framework of belief, what is left to believe in? The purely subjective?
Really a Perfect Plan?
Let me ask some even more fundamental questions:
- If sin is a fact in our world, and our world is a result of God's perfect plan, does that mean that God created sin?
- Or, put another way, what role does our free will play in the introduction of sin into our world. If God knew ahead of time that we would employ our free will to disobey, does that mean that we don't really have free will?
- Does the fact that an omniscient God would know ahead of time about our disobedience, does that make it any less an offense? If it does, then by extrapolating out to perfection does the offense go away?
A perfect vase?
We're getting somewhere with this ...
I maintain that God cannot be angry or sad with us because He knows (and has always known) what we are going to do anyway, and the things we do are part of His Perfect Plan. Now The Bible, as you quite rightly pointed out, says differently. So I am left with the following options:
I maintain that God cannot be angry or sad with us because He knows (and has always known) what we are going to do anyway, and the things we do are part of His Perfect Plan. Now The Bible, as you quite rightly pointed out, says differently. So I am left with the following options:
- I am wrong -- quite possibly
- I am right and The Bible is innacurate -- quite possibly (IMHO)
- I am right and The Bible is accurately reporting mans interpretation of God's "emotion" -- also possible
- Something else -- most likely
Option 3 is interesting. And quite possibly resolves how a perfect God who knows all things can get seemingly emotional about things he already knows and that are part of His Perfect Plan. I think point 3 could be split down further:
- Man misinterpreted God and then wrote about it
- God wanted man to believe that He was angry, presumably this is for mans benefit
- Something else
This is my rational analysis of a being that gets angry about his own Perfect Plan: it's not possible.
So in my rational view God does not get angry about sin or Tsunamis -- how could He be perfectly sad about His own perfect plan?
Unless we want to accept that His Plan is not Perfect of course? Which is not acceptable to me.
A Christian Church elder once explained to me that the Universe was like a perfect vase that unfortunately got cracked (that crack being the entrance of sin). I can't see how that is Absolutely True, if the vase were perfect then how could it get cracked? Perfect vases are uncrackable by definition.
Maybe people did write about a happier Jesus (there were over 100 Gospels written after all). Why do I have this horrible suspicion that the power brokers behind the canon went for the stick rather than the carrot? Either Jesus didn't laugh much or they chose the best option they felt to gain power over the people, or God decided on the four Gospels -- or something else. Your mileage may vary.
This is a rational discourse, rationality and religion don't mix. One doesn't need to bother re-drawing Ptolemys circles to make The Bible fit, one only needs to believe.
Current song: "Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam" - The Vaselines
Is God "Joyfull and Happy" About Sin?
Once again we cycle back to whether the cornerstone is properly set: is the Bible a faithful revelation of God's truth?
In your post you wrote, "My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness." Was God ecstatic and happy when his chosen people abandoned him and worshipped false idols? Is God ecstatic and happy when people commit acts of evil in his name? Was God ecastic and happy when the tsunami swept over a hundred thousand people? On the day of judgment, will God be ecstatic and happy as he casts multitudes into eternal damnation?
Based on your reasoning, God must therefore not possess another emotion: sadness.
Did you realize the Bible makes no reference to Jesus ever laughing? Yet it does make reference to him sad, disappointed and angry. I don't think that proves he never laughed, but I do think it's significant there's no recording of him having done so.
Another question: how are we to understand the concept of God's mercy in the context of God never being anything but happy and joyful? dictionary.com defines "Mercy" as "Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency." (emphasis mine) Clemency from what?
The Bible tells us that God sacrificed his Son Jesus as a way to atone for our sins. Why would God do that if he had no sense of meting out punishment for sins committed? The beauty of Grace is found in the magnitude of what it provides: forgiveness of our sins; avoidance of eternal damnation. And the source of that damnation can be none other than God himself.
Sobering thoughts, to be sure.
- If not, then it's hard for me to understand exactly what one would base one's concept of God upon, other then their own personal wishes and desires, projections and selections.
- If yes, then it's hard for me to understand how the idea of God's holy wrath -- mentioned hundreds of times throughout the Bible -- can be simply dismissed.
In your post you wrote, "My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness." Was God ecstatic and happy when his chosen people abandoned him and worshipped false idols? Is God ecstatic and happy when people commit acts of evil in his name? Was God ecastic and happy when the tsunami swept over a hundred thousand people? On the day of judgment, will God be ecstatic and happy as he casts multitudes into eternal damnation?
Based on your reasoning, God must therefore not possess another emotion: sadness.
Did you realize the Bible makes no reference to Jesus ever laughing? Yet it does make reference to him sad, disappointed and angry. I don't think that proves he never laughed, but I do think it's significant there's no recording of him having done so.
Another question: how are we to understand the concept of God's mercy in the context of God never being anything but happy and joyful? dictionary.com defines "Mercy" as "Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency." (emphasis mine) Clemency from what?
The Bible tells us that God sacrificed his Son Jesus as a way to atone for our sins. Why would God do that if he had no sense of meting out punishment for sins committed? The beauty of Grace is found in the magnitude of what it provides: forgiveness of our sins; avoidance of eternal damnation. And the source of that damnation can be none other than God himself.
Sobering thoughts, to be sure.
No one I think is in my tree
I appreciate your extensive insights on the Christian Doctrine, Sir. I would like to pick up on a few of your points:
"One aspect of his perfection is his perfect sense of justice. A perfect sense of justice would not -- could not -- simply allow an offense to go unpunished."
Your logical treatise was based on this initial premise. Unfortunately I believe that this statement reflects the world of men projecting it’s emotions onto God. “A perfect sense of justice” for God just doesn’t make sense to me. God, according to The Bible, is also a jealous God, so in that case does he have “A perfect sense of jealousy”?
I don’t believe that God has these emotions. Take anger for example, which by your argument, God has a perfect sense of.
Why do you (or I) get angry? Think of the last time you got really angry, as far as us humans can get – your best shot at a perfect anger.
Then try to understand how you would have felt if you had known in advance that the thing that made you angry was going to happen. Would you have been so angry about it if you’d already known about it and mulled on it for an eternity?
It depends how one defines a “perfect being”. The Bible defines a perfect being as one who is capable of anger, jealousy and feelings of righteous justice. My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness. The entire timeline is known, and indeed created by Him.
I think the prawn joke has been doing the circuit for a few years now but it hit my inbox yesterday so I thought that I would share. I guess my motivation behind it was that there is too much dourness and ritual in whiteys Church. I much prefer Reverend James Brown singing about the Old Landmark. God and Jesus laugh a lot (rather than get angry) methinks.
Oh and I think your logic is sound, but logic is not facts. Facts are judged by utility or fidelity, neither of which is quite the same as Absolute Truth, and very difficult to establish in the case of the events depicted in the Bible. Which is why reason fails and we need faith.
Current song: "Strawberry Fields Forever"
John was sharply insightful in this song with:
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
But then again he also said "I am the egg man goo goo ga choob". :-)
"One aspect of his perfection is his perfect sense of justice. A perfect sense of justice would not -- could not -- simply allow an offense to go unpunished."
Your logical treatise was based on this initial premise. Unfortunately I believe that this statement reflects the world of men projecting it’s emotions onto God. “A perfect sense of justice” for God just doesn’t make sense to me. God, according to The Bible, is also a jealous God, so in that case does he have “A perfect sense of jealousy”?
I don’t believe that God has these emotions. Take anger for example, which by your argument, God has a perfect sense of.
Why do you (or I) get angry? Think of the last time you got really angry, as far as us humans can get – your best shot at a perfect anger.
Then try to understand how you would have felt if you had known in advance that the thing that made you angry was going to happen. Would you have been so angry about it if you’d already known about it and mulled on it for an eternity?
It depends how one defines a “perfect being”. The Bible defines a perfect being as one who is capable of anger, jealousy and feelings of righteous justice. My suspicion is that God is in an unimaginable state of constant ecstatic joy and happiness. The entire timeline is known, and indeed created by Him.
I think the prawn joke has been doing the circuit for a few years now but it hit my inbox yesterday so I thought that I would share. I guess my motivation behind it was that there is too much dourness and ritual in whiteys Church. I much prefer Reverend James Brown singing about the Old Landmark. God and Jesus laugh a lot (rather than get angry) methinks.
Oh and I think your logic is sound, but logic is not facts. Facts are judged by utility or fidelity, neither of which is quite the same as Absolute Truth, and very difficult to establish in the case of the events depicted in the Bible. Which is why reason fails and we need faith.
Current song: "Strawberry Fields Forever"
John was sharply insightful in this song with:
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
But then again he also said "I am the egg man goo goo ga choob". :-)
Monday, February 14, 2005
What Did Jesus Really Suffer?
This is another question you've posed recently, and I'm going to springboard off a line from my previous post. In my post I make mention of the "wrath" of God. The idea of God possessing anger or "wrath" is not popular in this day and age. Yet the Bible is pretty clear that God does indeed possess a sense of righteous anger.
The key to this, it seems to me, is to understand that his anger is perfectly righteous. That means it's never arbitrary, never capricious, never without perfect justice. But anger he is capable of, and angry he does become. The Bible speaks frequently of "fearing" God. In one sense, I think, that means to have a healthy regard for God's righteous anger.
Note: This is another block in the wall of Christian doctrine. The Christian faith makes little sense if God is without a sense of righteous anger, and is incapable of holy wrath. If the God one desires is a kind of "peace and love" permissive god, then what I am about to express will make no sense whatever.
In some ways, the movie "Passion of the Christ" did a disservice. It focused, I think, too heavily on the physical suffering of Jesus during his flogging and crucifixion. I don't think that Christ's agitation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37-38) was due entirely to the anticipation of the physical pain to be endured. Some, to be sure, but not entirely.
It is noteworthy, I feel, that during the entire flogging and crucifixion, the Bible never recounts Jesus crying out to God. He does not do that until the very moment prior to death, when he cries out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, NIV)
My understanding of this is that at that moment, God placed the accumulated weight of mankind's sin on Jesus, and at that moment Jesus bore the full wrath and fury of God the Father; wrath that would have been ours were it not for Grace.
I have read that at that moment Jesus suffered separation from God his Father for the first time in all of eternity. An eternity of perfect love and communion shattered by Christ's bearing our sin so the righteous wrath of God could serve his perfect justice.
I have read that at that moment God sent Christ to hell. Imagine that ... God sending his eternal son to hell because of our sins. That is either incredibly foolish, or incredibly gracious.
That, to my understanding, is what Jesus suffered. That is the cup he asked be taken from him. That explains the cry, "Why have you forsaken me?" That is why we should be on our knees, grateful for his saving work on our behalf.
* * *
I do not fully grasp the depth and breadth of this. But I did once for a split second. At a moment when I was wrestling with trying to understand the magnitude of it all, my mind "opened up" and I "saw" the depth and breadth. For only a moment, then it was gone. The memory lingers in my mind. God provided me with a moment of revelation to fuel my path to Christ; he has left me with a faint memory of what I experienced. Like your experiences, deep.thought, I can't explain this. But it was real. That I know.
* * *
Thank you, Jesus.
The key to this, it seems to me, is to understand that his anger is perfectly righteous. That means it's never arbitrary, never capricious, never without perfect justice. But anger he is capable of, and angry he does become. The Bible speaks frequently of "fearing" God. In one sense, I think, that means to have a healthy regard for God's righteous anger.
Note: This is another block in the wall of Christian doctrine. The Christian faith makes little sense if God is without a sense of righteous anger, and is incapable of holy wrath. If the God one desires is a kind of "peace and love" permissive god, then what I am about to express will make no sense whatever.
In some ways, the movie "Passion of the Christ" did a disservice. It focused, I think, too heavily on the physical suffering of Jesus during his flogging and crucifixion. I don't think that Christ's agitation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37-38) was due entirely to the anticipation of the physical pain to be endured. Some, to be sure, but not entirely.
It is noteworthy, I feel, that during the entire flogging and crucifixion, the Bible never recounts Jesus crying out to God. He does not do that until the very moment prior to death, when he cries out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46, NIV)
My understanding of this is that at that moment, God placed the accumulated weight of mankind's sin on Jesus, and at that moment Jesus bore the full wrath and fury of God the Father; wrath that would have been ours were it not for Grace.
I have read that at that moment Jesus suffered separation from God his Father for the first time in all of eternity. An eternity of perfect love and communion shattered by Christ's bearing our sin so the righteous wrath of God could serve his perfect justice.
I have read that at that moment God sent Christ to hell. Imagine that ... God sending his eternal son to hell because of our sins. That is either incredibly foolish, or incredibly gracious.
That, to my understanding, is what Jesus suffered. That is the cup he asked be taken from him. That explains the cry, "Why have you forsaken me?" That is why we should be on our knees, grateful for his saving work on our behalf.
* * *
I do not fully grasp the depth and breadth of this. But I did once for a split second. At a moment when I was wrestling with trying to understand the magnitude of it all, my mind "opened up" and I "saw" the depth and breadth. For only a moment, then it was gone. The memory lingers in my mind. God provided me with a moment of revelation to fuel my path to Christ; he has left me with a faint memory of what I experienced. Like your experiences, deep.thought, I can't explain this. But it was real. That I know.
* * *
Thank you, Jesus.
Why Require the Sacrifice of Jesus?
I've given considerable background thought to this question. I've read more than a few things on this subject, and I think I could do a fair job summarizing the essential points of the doctrine (see below). But as I pondered this, I kept coming 'round to a more basic question:
One of the things I have discovered about myself -- or one of the things God is trying to get me to listen to -- is that I do not and will not make a good Christian apologist. I do not relish a debate ... particularly on this general topic. Because ultimately it is a subject that cannot be argued conclusively. Ultimately the logical basis for the entire Christian faith is rooted in the Bible. All one need do is reject the basic premise of the Bible's authority on the subject and any further attempt to argue for the Faith is, truth be told, essentially futile.
Note: or, more precisely, it would require that the apologist cycle back, time and again, to the question of God's revelation -- general as seen in nature (though even that is frequently rejected by those wishing to deny a creator God); specific as found in Scripture. The basic point here is that the Christian argument cannot be moved forward without settling on this basic premise. It is like me trying to construct a geometric proof when we can't even agree on what "parallel" means ... and by that I mean in the Euclidean sense, not some weirdo black-hole, gravity-warped, time-compressed, string-theory, King's-pawn-gambit world where parallel lines do in fact cross multiple times. :-)
* * *
Now, all that said, here's what I believe is the common explanation for the necessity of atoning sacrifice:
May the Lord forgive me if I've done a disservice to His Sovereign Truth. The Bible says (somewhere ... drats! I wish I had more patience to look these things up) that a particular responsibility will fall upon the shoulders of teachers of God's Truth. I do not think I have contradicted Scripture here; but I do not think I've offered a particuarly compelling recounting of it.
Coming from a perfect God, is the answer "Just because" sufficient?Our understanding of God, as recorded in the Bible and built upon by two thousand years of doctrinal development, still admits to grand mysteries that will never be understood. One of those mysteries is the true nature of the Trinity. Another is exactly what transpired at that moment when Christ bore our sins and served as an atoning sacrifice.
One of the things I have discovered about myself -- or one of the things God is trying to get me to listen to -- is that I do not and will not make a good Christian apologist. I do not relish a debate ... particularly on this general topic. Because ultimately it is a subject that cannot be argued conclusively. Ultimately the logical basis for the entire Christian faith is rooted in the Bible. All one need do is reject the basic premise of the Bible's authority on the subject and any further attempt to argue for the Faith is, truth be told, essentially futile.
Note: or, more precisely, it would require that the apologist cycle back, time and again, to the question of God's revelation -- general as seen in nature (though even that is frequently rejected by those wishing to deny a creator God); specific as found in Scripture. The basic point here is that the Christian argument cannot be moved forward without settling on this basic premise. It is like me trying to construct a geometric proof when we can't even agree on what "parallel" means ... and by that I mean in the Euclidean sense, not some weirdo black-hole, gravity-warped, time-compressed, string-theory, King's-pawn-gambit world where parallel lines do in fact cross multiple times. :-)
* * *
Now, all that said, here's what I believe is the common explanation for the necessity of atoning sacrifice:
- Mankind has committed -- and continues to commit -- a tremendous offense to God. Mankind's sinfulness is not measured in degrees from God's perspective. We are all equally abhorent to God. Absent Christ's righteousness, Mother Theresa was no better than you or me. (I am quite certain she would have agreed with that. What else explains her remarkable humility?)
- God is a perfect, as you point out. One aspect of his perfection is his perfect sense of justice. A perfect sense of justice would not -- could not -- simply allow an offense to go unpunished. It would be akin to us watching a hoodlum rough-up a helpless old lady, and then watch as police stand around, laugh and do nothing about it. Our sense of the injustice in that would ignite tremendous fury within us. Magnify that sense of injustice an infinite number of times to approximate God's perfect sense on the matter.
- God has ordained that the shedding of blood is what shall make an atonement for the offense committed. (Leviticus 17:11, NIV: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.")
- To achieve reconcilation to a perfect God would require a perfect sacrifice. A goat would not achieve lasting atonement -- and indeed it did not; in the Old Testament the day of atonement was an annual event. The sacrifice of a mere man would not for the same reason. It would take the sacrifice of a perfect man. That perfect man is Jesus of Nazareth.
- Hence Jesus as the incarnate God -- God among us; the Word become flesh -- perfect in his obedience to God, utterly sinless, a spotless atoning sacrifice.
- This does not explain how Christ's sacrifice was an atonement for our sins. That's a mystery.
- This logic is not unassailable. Again, it is constructed upon a critical cornerstone; that is, the authority of the Bible's recounting of this.
- This logic is meaningless to anyone who does not accept or comprehend the idea of a perfect God.
- This logic is meaningless to anyone who rejects the notion of our inherent sinfulness.
- This logic is meaningless to anyone who thinks of Jesus as simply a "great teacher."
- This logic is meaningless to anyone who rejects the notion of God possessing anger or wrath.
- This logic is meaningless to anyone who longs for a God who simply turns a blind eye and allows us to be captains of our own destiny; to continue in our chosen ways; to demand nothing of us but grant us our every wish.
May the Lord forgive me if I've done a disservice to His Sovereign Truth. The Bible says (somewhere ... drats! I wish I had more patience to look these things up) that a particular responsibility will fall upon the shoulders of teachers of God's Truth. I do not think I have contradicted Scripture here; but I do not think I've offered a particuarly compelling recounting of it.
The Extent of God's Self-Sufficiency
You posted a line of reasoning that is deliciously compelling:
Why?
To answer this is to give a summation of pretty much the sweep of Christian theology as I understand it. (And admittedly, my understanding is limited ... very limited.) As I drink another (several) cups of coffee, let me ponder a proper response.
The answer may be "42." We'll see. :-)
- Yahweh is indeed perfect so has no requirement for us to ask for his forgiveness. Yet he still wants us to.
- He also has no requirement for a compensating transaction – a sacrifice; he has no requirements for anything.
- However, we need to accept that a sacrifice (Jesus) and His forgiveness are necessary.
- Therefore there must be something of benefit to us (not God) in recognizing that we need His forgiveness for our transgressions and that we need to accept Grace from Him.
- God wants us to benefit from this "something" so places a requirement upon us to recognize this and comply.
Why?
To answer this is to give a summation of pretty much the sweep of Christian theology as I understand it. (And admittedly, my understanding is limited ... very limited.) As I drink another (several) cups of coffee, let me ponder a proper response.
The answer may be "42." We'll see. :-)
Annoyance
You wrote:
There's another example, and it's more pertinent to the Christian faith: university theologians. Many of the theologians at the big-name universities like Harvard and Princeton (and probably Oxford and Cambridge as well) are quite knowledgeable about the theology that has developed over time regarding God, but do not know him at all. In fact many are admitted atheists. Their study of God appears to be indifferently scientific ... based on the available scholarship and archeology.
Note: I'm not dismissing the scientific approach. It is suited to many things. But not all things.
You wrote:
Note: in fairness, a large portion of today's Christianity is also this way. It has become in some circles little more than a self-help program. "Be a Christian and be happy." Or, "Send money and enjoy God's bountiful riches in return." Mankind can take anything and turn it around to be a tool of selfish pursuits.
This is where the God of the Bible is utterly different. He is, as you write with regard to whether he is impersonal: "it appears to me that He is not." And your rejoinder is perfect: "Quite annoying, really." I suspect the personal nature of the True God is something that is enormously annoying to many. I suspect that is why many respond to the subject of Jesus Christ with anything between mild antipathy to violent opposition.
Several years ago, when I was still seeking, I read a book by John R. W. Stott called "Basic Christianity." The title is a misnomer -- the book is anything but a "...for Dummies" book. The book had an enormous impact on me. One of the chapters was titled, "Counting the Costs," and had to do with the depth of the commitment involved with being a follower of Christ. One sentence stays with me and will forever: "Jesus never hid the fact that the offer came with a demand, and the demand was a complete as the offer was free."
Annoying ... very annoying indeed. :-)
Brilliant point, deep.thought. Perfect word. Spot on.
A scientist will tell you that taking a personal interest in an indifferent phenomenon is his (or her) life’s work. They’ll also go on to tell you that if you’re only interested in a God that is interested in you then you are applying a selection effect.I would suggest that the difference is akin to studying love as a clinical third-person observer versus experiencing love with another. The former may be clinical and scientific and require no response from the subject; the latter is only really possible when the interest and care is deeply reciprocal.
There's another example, and it's more pertinent to the Christian faith: university theologians. Many of the theologians at the big-name universities like Harvard and Princeton (and probably Oxford and Cambridge as well) are quite knowledgeable about the theology that has developed over time regarding God, but do not know him at all. In fact many are admitted atheists. Their study of God appears to be indifferently scientific ... based on the available scholarship and archeology.
Note: I'm not dismissing the scientific approach. It is suited to many things. But not all things.
You wrote:
“I would be interested in God if He were an impersonal being; however it really appears to me that He is not. Quite annoying really” :-)I think you've touched upon something quite significant here. One of the attractive features of the non-Christian belief systems is that they often do not require anything truly significant of the follower. Most of those traditions -- or, I should say, the present day manifestations of those traditions, after having been reshaped -- are really all about serving the follower, not the other way around. Sure, there are elements of commitment to the higher being, but usually in the form of legalistic practices and rituals, and often they are not really that demanding.
Note: in fairness, a large portion of today's Christianity is also this way. It has become in some circles little more than a self-help program. "Be a Christian and be happy." Or, "Send money and enjoy God's bountiful riches in return." Mankind can take anything and turn it around to be a tool of selfish pursuits.
This is where the God of the Bible is utterly different. He is, as you write with regard to whether he is impersonal: "it appears to me that He is not." And your rejoinder is perfect: "Quite annoying, really." I suspect the personal nature of the True God is something that is enormously annoying to many. I suspect that is why many respond to the subject of Jesus Christ with anything between mild antipathy to violent opposition.
Several years ago, when I was still seeking, I read a book by John R. W. Stott called "Basic Christianity." The title is a misnomer -- the book is anything but a "...for Dummies" book. The book had an enormous impact on me. One of the chapters was titled, "Counting the Costs," and had to do with the depth of the commitment involved with being a follower of Christ. One sentence stays with me and will forever: "Jesus never hid the fact that the offer came with a demand, and the demand was a complete as the offer was free."
Annoying ... very annoying indeed. :-)
Brilliant point, deep.thought. Perfect word. Spot on.
Shark Tales
Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the sea - one called Justin and the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed by sharks.
Finally Justin said to Christian, "I'm fed up with being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."
A large, mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted", and lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate.
Time passed. Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them.
While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again and he begged to be changed back. It happened! What a miraculous thing! With tears of joy in his tiny little prawn-eyes, Justin swam back to his friends. But looking around the reef couldn't see his old pal.
"Where's Christian?" he asked.
"He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy and became a shark," came the reply.
Eager to put things right again, Justin set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate, memories came flooding back.
He banged on the door and shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend! Come out and see me again!"
Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're now a shark, the enemy, and I'll not be tricked into being your dinner."
Justin cried back, "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed... I've found Cod! I'm a prawn again, Christian".
Finally Justin said to Christian, "I'm fed up with being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."
A large, mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted", and lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate.
Time passed. Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them.
While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again and he begged to be changed back. It happened! What a miraculous thing! With tears of joy in his tiny little prawn-eyes, Justin swam back to his friends. But looking around the reef couldn't see his old pal.
"Where's Christian?" he asked.
"He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy and became a shark," came the reply.
Eager to put things right again, Justin set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate, memories came flooding back.
He banged on the door and shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend! Come out and see me again!"
Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're now a shark, the enemy, and I'll not be tricked into being your dinner."
Justin cried back, "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed... I've found Cod! I'm a prawn again, Christian".
Your own personal Jesus
A non-personal force or energy may be "out there," but if it has no personal interest in me, then why I would take an interest in it isn't clear.
I think you’re absolutely spot on there... but the way you’ve phrased that little gem causes scientists (at least) a problem. A scientist will tell you that taking a personal interest in an indifferent phenomenon is his (or her) life’s work. They’ll also go on to tell you that if you’re only interested in a God that is interested in you then you are applying a selection effect.
I would rephrase as something like:
“I would be interested in God if He were an impersonal being; however it really appears to me that He is not. Quite annoying really” :-)
In my opinion, the most attractive thing about Christianity is the "personal" aspect.
And you asked about my motivation behind #3 “Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression." I wrote this as an afterthought to 1 & 2.
My thoughts were:
1. Yahweh is indeed perfect so has no requirement for us to ask for his forgiveness. Yet he still wants us to.
2. He also has no requirement for a compensating transaction – a sacrifice; he has no requirements for anything.
3. However, we need to accept that a sacrifice (Jesus) and His forgiveness are necessary.
4. Therefore there must be something of benefit to us (not God) in recognizing that we need His forgiveness for our transgressions and that we need to accept Grace from Him.
5. God wants us to benefit from this "something" so places a requirement upon us to recognize this and comply.
Something like that – anything that happens (including The Fall and Tsunamis) must somehow be for our benefit rather than God’s, if that were not the case then God would not be perfect.
Current song: "Personal Jesus" -- Depeche Mode
Sunday, February 13, 2005
An Existent God; A Holy God; A Personal God
In your last post you set out three pre-conditions that must exist in the mind of a person before the idea of "Grace" -- let alone the acceptance of Grace -- may become a reality. I've been pondering that ever since; even after I'd posted one response. Let me suggest that the whole of the Christian Faith may be difficult if not impossible to grasp without three key foundation blocks in place:
Note: an analogy -- I can hardly teach someone about derivatives or integrals before first teaching them about numbers and fractions ... or at least determining if they already know about those prerequisite skills.
I am still pondering your other questions:
- God exists
- God is "Holy"
- God is personal
It would seem this goes without saying. Certainly if one holds to a purely atheistic worldview, then any discussion of forgiveness, sacrifice and Grace will seem foolish. If God does not exist, then there is no God to offend with my "sin."God's Holiness
However, there's a gray area between faith in no God and faith in the God, isn't there? Many people reside there: "God" is out there ... somewhere ... I think ... I guess. Both you and I fell into this category just a few short years ago.
If one's understanding and belief in God never progresses beyond this, what hope is there of a real understanding of our hopeless standing before God, his selfless sacrifice, his gracious forgiveness? Little, I would suppose.
And by this I mean that everything about him is unimaginably beyond our standards -- he is powerful beyond our ability to comprehend; he is perfectly righteous; he is unchanging, not needing to change because his every way is flawless; his sense of justice and mercy is perfect.God's Personal Nature
That's a very difficult thing to imagine. Our minds, I think, stop well short of being able to fully apprehend it.
And yet understanding this -- however dimly -- is, I think, a pre-requisite to saving faith. The idea of us falling short -- even the truly saintly among us -- before this perfect God is what moves to understand a need for a savior. The idea of a need to make restitution for the offense committed before this perfect God would seem folly if we felt that God himself was capable of an occasional mistake or error in judgment.
Finally, if the "perfect God" was utterly indifferent towards the world, then any notion of his taking special effort to provide a means of salvation to us would seem ridiculous. This is where the idea of God being a "life force" or "universal energy" falls short. There is no concept of the personal in a "force" or an "energy." A non-personal force or energy may be "out there," but if it has no personal interest in me, then why I would take an interest in it isn't clear.Please ... do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a person must fully and comprehensively grasp all three to be in a position to have saving faith. I believe I have little more than a tenuous grip on all three. But your comment about talking to someone about "Grace" prior to establishing the pre-conditions you outlined really got me thinking. You're absolutely right ... there must be some "up front" beliefs before the Christian story makes much sense. The point I'm making in this post is that the three points I've outlined here is what "sets the stage" for a subsequent discussion of sinfulness, sacrifice, atonement, justification, salvation and ... Grace.
But once one starts to grasp the idea of the existent God -- the Holy God -- taking a real and personal interest in each of us ... well, then the dynamic of things changes quite a bit.
Note: an analogy -- I can hardly teach someone about derivatives or integrals before first teaching them about numbers and fractions ... or at least determining if they already know about those prerequisite skills.
I am still pondering your other questions:
- Why God would require a sacrifice?
- What exactly did God suffer or sacrifice during the crucifixion of Jesus?
Three Conditions
You wrote:
What I'm fascinated with is your #3 -- "Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression." I'll grant that the point you make is a necessary pre-condition to any true understanding of Grace as it's Biblically expressed. It also strikes me that the three points you make are necessarily sequential -- #2 follows #1, and #3 follows the first two. What I'm fascinated with was the thinking you had in your mind when you considered the third point and typed it into the computer. Care to elaborate?
* * *
Is all life built on left-handed proteins? All animals, all plants, all lichen, all bacteria, all spongiforms ... everything? Interesting. You mention that one thing we all have in common is an inability to digest right-handed proteins. I wonder ... from an intelligent design point of view, that makes perfect sense: we're all eligible as food sources for one another.
* * *
Dolphins -- yes, they appear to be smart. There is clearly a gradation of intelligence among the life forms, and even within a given category of life form. We're smarter than a dolphin; the dolphin is smarter than the dog; the dog moreso than the earthworm. The Border Collie is smarter than the Irish Setter.
Note: of course, we could get into quite a row over how one determines that an earthworm isn't "smart." :-)
The dolphin case you cite suggests they were aware of the threat the sharks posed to the humans. The motivation they possessed to protect the humans is an open question; one we'll I guess never know.
Here's the question: do you suppose dolphins swim around and think, "Hmmm ... I'm a dolphin. Where did I come from? What's my purpose in this ocean? What happens when I die?"
I'm skeptical ... but I'm not clear in my mind if that's not human chauvinism at work.
As I mentioned, the chapter on man's self-awareness from "Case for a Creator" left me unpersuaded. Too, too abstract.
* * *
You wrote: " ... did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose?"
Oh my ... this ties back to a question you posed earlier, but I have not yet come to address ... why would an omnipotent God require any kind of sacrifice as a prerequisite to forgiving us our sins. To the best of my undestanding, the doctrine explains it by first establishing God's holiness. Which is your #1 from before.
That'll be my next post. For now, other things call.
Thank you for the energy to continue this 'Blog. It is rather interesting and challenging.
The acceptance of "Grace from God" assumes at least three things on the part of the person accepting. That person must also:Valid points, all. In fact, I suspect that one of the difficulties the Christian faith has in advancing itself in today's world is with your #1 and #2. To many, the idea of an omnipotent and perfect God is either a distant, vaporous notion in their minds -- not utterly ruled out, but not directly dealt with -- or to the extent it is believed, that God is rather limited. God is a either a faceless "force" of some kind, or God is a benevolent grandfather type, willing to overlook and forget about transgressions. And the notion of our having done something wrong and in need of forgiveness is perhaps the single most imposing impediment. The book from the 70's, "I'm Okay, You're Okay" pretty well sums up the issue.
I think it's 1, 2 & 3 above rather than the "Grace from God" that many people have difficulty in accepting. If you believe in 1, 2 & 3 then you may as well accept the fact that you need to accept Grace from God. "We did wrong, we need to be forgiven."
- Accept the existence of an omnipotent and perfect Yahweh
- Accept that we (humanity) did something wrong, something to upset Yahweh (who incidentally knew we were going to do this wrong thing anyway)
- Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression
What I'm fascinated with is your #3 -- "Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression." I'll grant that the point you make is a necessary pre-condition to any true understanding of Grace as it's Biblically expressed. It also strikes me that the three points you make are necessarily sequential -- #2 follows #1, and #3 follows the first two. What I'm fascinated with was the thinking you had in your mind when you considered the third point and typed it into the computer. Care to elaborate?
* * *
Is all life built on left-handed proteins? All animals, all plants, all lichen, all bacteria, all spongiforms ... everything? Interesting. You mention that one thing we all have in common is an inability to digest right-handed proteins. I wonder ... from an intelligent design point of view, that makes perfect sense: we're all eligible as food sources for one another.
* * *
Dolphins -- yes, they appear to be smart. There is clearly a gradation of intelligence among the life forms, and even within a given category of life form. We're smarter than a dolphin; the dolphin is smarter than the dog; the dog moreso than the earthworm. The Border Collie is smarter than the Irish Setter.
Note: of course, we could get into quite a row over how one determines that an earthworm isn't "smart." :-)
The dolphin case you cite suggests they were aware of the threat the sharks posed to the humans. The motivation they possessed to protect the humans is an open question; one we'll I guess never know.
Here's the question: do you suppose dolphins swim around and think, "Hmmm ... I'm a dolphin. Where did I come from? What's my purpose in this ocean? What happens when I die?"
I'm skeptical ... but I'm not clear in my mind if that's not human chauvinism at work.
As I mentioned, the chapter on man's self-awareness from "Case for a Creator" left me unpersuaded. Too, too abstract.
* * *
You wrote: " ... did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose?"
Oh my ... this ties back to a question you posed earlier, but I have not yet come to address ... why would an omnipotent God require any kind of sacrifice as a prerequisite to forgiving us our sins. To the best of my undestanding, the doctrine explains it by first establishing God's holiness. Which is your #1 from before.
That'll be my next post. For now, other things call.
Thank you for the energy to continue this 'Blog. It is rather interesting and challenging.
Grace, sacrifice and dolphins
"But when it comes to Grace from God, there seems to be a fundamental stumbling block -- we (or, I should say, many) find it very difficult to simply accept."
The acceptance of "Grace from God" assumes at least three things on the part of the person accepting. That person must also:
1. Accept the existence of an omnipotent and perfect Yahweh
2. Accept that we (humanity) did something wrong, something to upset Yahweh (who incidentally knew we were going to do this wrong thing anyway)
3. Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression
I think it's 1, 2 & 3 above rather than the "Grace from God" that many people have difficulty in accepting. If you believe in 1, 2 & 3 then you may as well accept the fact that you need to accept Grace from God. "We did wrong, we need to be forgiven."
On the subject of sacrifice and Christ's "passion" - we've had this debate before but did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose? And God is at liberty to change past events anyway.
About intelligence and the ponderance of one's own existence -- I recently read that a school of dolphins had saved some divers from sharks. The divers were diving and unbeknownst to them, sharks were on the way -- presumably to dine out on the human contingent.
Dolphins surrounded the divers in an effort to protect them from the (as yet unseen) sharks. One of the divers got spooked by dolphins behaving in such a manner and tried to swim away but one of the dolphins rounded him up and brought him back to the group of humans. The divers were protected from attack and they all survived to tell the tale.
I don't know how smart dolphins are, but in this case they were more aware (at least) than the human diver who tried to swim off. They also had an attitude of care which strikes me as quite enlightened. There are an estimated 10,000,000 unique species on the Earth of which perhaps 80% have yet to be classified. We seem to be the dominant species, but that may turn out not to be the case.
There is a connection between all life catalogued so far on Earth. We're all built on left handed proteins, this suggests a common root. We, and the rest of our lefty comrades, are not able to digest food constructed of right hand proteins.
The fact that the human species appears so advanced compared to most other life on Earth but at the same time so intrinsically connected to the rest of the biosphere suggests (to me) that we received special treatment at some point. But again this could be a failure of imagination, or nerve. Clarke's TMA-1 monolith springs to mind again.
Glad to hear that you are settling in down there Mr. Diy and I trust that your new Church is providing you with what you need.
The acceptance of "Grace from God" assumes at least three things on the part of the person accepting. That person must also:
1. Accept the existence of an omnipotent and perfect Yahweh
2. Accept that we (humanity) did something wrong, something to upset Yahweh (who incidentally knew we were going to do this wrong thing anyway)
3. Accept that the omnipotent Yahweh wants us to recognize that we need his forgiveness for that transgression
I think it's 1, 2 & 3 above rather than the "Grace from God" that many people have difficulty in accepting. If you believe in 1, 2 & 3 then you may as well accept the fact that you need to accept Grace from God. "We did wrong, we need to be forgiven."
On the subject of sacrifice and Christ's "passion" - we've had this debate before but did God really sacrifice his only Son? What did God lose? And God is at liberty to change past events anyway.
About intelligence and the ponderance of one's own existence -- I recently read that a school of dolphins had saved some divers from sharks. The divers were diving and unbeknownst to them, sharks were on the way -- presumably to dine out on the human contingent.
Dolphins surrounded the divers in an effort to protect them from the (as yet unseen) sharks. One of the divers got spooked by dolphins behaving in such a manner and tried to swim away but one of the dolphins rounded him up and brought him back to the group of humans. The divers were protected from attack and they all survived to tell the tale.
I don't know how smart dolphins are, but in this case they were more aware (at least) than the human diver who tried to swim off. They also had an attitude of care which strikes me as quite enlightened. There are an estimated 10,000,000 unique species on the Earth of which perhaps 80% have yet to be classified. We seem to be the dominant species, but that may turn out not to be the case.
There is a connection between all life catalogued so far on Earth. We're all built on left handed proteins, this suggests a common root. We, and the rest of our lefty comrades, are not able to digest food constructed of right hand proteins.
The fact that the human species appears so advanced compared to most other life on Earth but at the same time so intrinsically connected to the rest of the biosphere suggests (to me) that we received special treatment at some point. But again this could be a failure of imagination, or nerve. Clarke's TMA-1 monolith springs to mind again.
Glad to hear that you are settling in down there Mr. Diy and I trust that your new Church is providing you with what you need.
Sunday Morning in Tucson
There's a whole discussion thread waiting to happen based on your last post. Was Descartes on to something? Does our ability to ponder our own existence imply something beyond the thinking other creatures may do?
The book "Case for a Creator" made much of "self-awareness," and how that was yet another brick in the wall of evidence for our having been created. I was something less than persuaded by that chapter. But that's probably because the thinking in this realm is somewhat abstract, and that's not my strong suit. But it does strike me that our ability to think about our thinking is somehow significant.
* * *
I spent much of yesterday unpacking boxes and putting together various things my wife had purchased that required assembly. The simple shelving systems were easy -- a few screws and it was done. The office chair was a different matter -- portions of that assembly were quite difficult. And the two-drawer filing cabinet was positively challenging, made doubly-so by instructions that were not well written. I'm amazed that Office Depot sells those things in an unassembled state ... I doubt the average consumer would be able to navigate the process. I didn't notice or ask, but I would imagine Office Depot sells "assembly services" to have the things put together.
Thank goodness the products our company produces require no special skill to assemble, configure or use, huh? :-)
* * *
You wrote:
One of the challenges comes from really understanding what repentance is. This is where I struggle ... I'm aware of my sins, I even feel remorse or sorrow over having comitted them, but do I have a true change of heart so that the very thought of committing the sins again is anathema? Sadly, no ... or, to be more precise, not in an enduring way.
Sidenote: Interesting ... dictionary.com has the following exposition on the word "repentance." This is taken from "Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary."
So I'm wondering ... maybe the question isn't "Should I do something other than repent?" But rather: "Have I truly repented?"
I can only speak for myself ... sometimes I have my doubts.
* * *
Let's assume true repentance has occurred ... then what? Go back to Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary: "... a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments."
All manner of things pour out of this:
But still, there's an interesting thing here -- in the Christian faith the "persistent endeavour" is a response, not a solution. In other words, one strives to "be holy" not because it itself brings salvation; rather, one strives to "be holy" as a loving response to He who has granted unearned forgiveness.
I'm always struck by our -- humankind's -- tendency toward legalism. I wonder what it is in our makeup that induces an attempt to work towards and earn things on our own? In a larger sense I suppose that's a very good thing -- absent that basic tendency, we would all sit around looking for others to support us, right? But when it comes to Grace from God, there seems to be a fundamental stumbling block -- we (or, I should say, many) find it very difficult to simply accept.
Again, I write all this not from a high horse, but from the position of a many who faces the same struggles.
And on that note, we depart for church.
We attend the 8:30am service ... that's worth 20 points towards our daily salvation quota; the 10:00am service is only 10 points. :-)
The book "Case for a Creator" made much of "self-awareness," and how that was yet another brick in the wall of evidence for our having been created. I was something less than persuaded by that chapter. But that's probably because the thinking in this realm is somewhat abstract, and that's not my strong suit. But it does strike me that our ability to think about our thinking is somehow significant.
* * *
I spent much of yesterday unpacking boxes and putting together various things my wife had purchased that required assembly. The simple shelving systems were easy -- a few screws and it was done. The office chair was a different matter -- portions of that assembly were quite difficult. And the two-drawer filing cabinet was positively challenging, made doubly-so by instructions that were not well written. I'm amazed that Office Depot sells those things in an unassembled state ... I doubt the average consumer would be able to navigate the process. I didn't notice or ask, but I would imagine Office Depot sells "assembly services" to have the things put together.
Thank goodness the products our company produces require no special skill to assemble, configure or use, huh? :-)
* * *
You wrote:
Should I be doing something other than repenting?That's a very interesting (and complex) question. The Bible seems clear that repentance is a necessary first step to salvation, but it also makes clear (but less directly) that repentance is not the only response.
One of the challenges comes from really understanding what repentance is. This is where I struggle ... I'm aware of my sins, I even feel remorse or sorrow over having comitted them, but do I have a true change of heart so that the very thought of committing the sins again is anathema? Sadly, no ... or, to be more precise, not in an enduring way.
Sidenote: Interesting ... dictionary.com has the following exposition on the word "repentance." This is taken from "Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary."
Evangelical repentance consists of (1) a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness; (2) an apprehension of God's mercy in Christ; (3) an actual hatred of sin (Ps. 119:128; Job 42:5, 6; 2 Cor. 7:10) and turning from it to God; and (4) a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments. The true penitent is conscious of guilt (Ps. 51:4, 9), of pollution (51:5, 7, 10), and of helplessness (51:11; 109:21, 22). Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Ps. 51:1;130:4).That's interesting for two reasons: 1) that dictionary.com would have such an overtly Christian exposition on their site; and 2) that a dictionary from 1897 would be chosen to provide the material.
So I'm wondering ... maybe the question isn't "Should I do something other than repent?" But rather: "Have I truly repented?"
I can only speak for myself ... sometimes I have my doubts.
* * *
Let's assume true repentance has occurred ... then what? Go back to Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary: "... a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments."
All manner of things pour out of this:
- "persistent endeavour" -- daily, hourly ... constantly
- "holy life" -- without sin, to the extent we are humanly possible
- "in the way of his commandments" -- as provided where? The Bible.
But still, there's an interesting thing here -- in the Christian faith the "persistent endeavour" is a response, not a solution. In other words, one strives to "be holy" not because it itself brings salvation; rather, one strives to "be holy" as a loving response to He who has granted unearned forgiveness.
I'm always struck by our -- humankind's -- tendency toward legalism. I wonder what it is in our makeup that induces an attempt to work towards and earn things on our own? In a larger sense I suppose that's a very good thing -- absent that basic tendency, we would all sit around looking for others to support us, right? But when it comes to Grace from God, there seems to be a fundamental stumbling block -- we (or, I should say, many) find it very difficult to simply accept.
Again, I write all this not from a high horse, but from the position of a many who faces the same struggles.
And on that note, we depart for church.
We attend the 8:30am service ... that's worth 20 points towards our daily salvation quota; the 10:00am service is only 10 points. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)