Posted by Helen on: 08.09.2006 /
On the CatE discussion board, in a discussion about the Bible Answer Man, Susan (who has a blog of her own called The Write Journey) wrote:
Something that I have learned from the Bible about spiritual truth is this: It is given only by God. (I Corinthians 2:14) That’s why a person can study the Bible for a lifetime and never get it. That’s why meaningless arguments can last forever and there’s never a resolution. As I said before, such understanding is available to anyone, though, if they are only seeking (Matthew 7:7-8 & Psalm 34:8)
I have some questions for Susan. I’m going to invite her here to answer them. Everyone else is welcome to share their thoughts also.
Comment by: Keith
1Helen,
Thanks for posting this … I look forward to hearing Susan’s answers to your questions. If I may, I would like to add:
1. If it is possible to study for a lifetime without getting it, where/how does a person find assurance that they have indeed “gotten it?”
2. Is 1 Corinthians 2:14 referring to study of the Scriptures, or to receiving the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Susan, thank you in advance for your willingness to respond to these questions. Though I’m not sure we agree here, I can identify with the sense that the length of an argument does not always match the depth of its meaning. Thank you for your honesty, as always.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
2Helen, Keith and other guests,
Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on my earlier comment. I will answer your questions, but first let me state the following:
Part of the mystery of the Bible can only be seen if you have a wide-lense. Most scholars study the Bible as a compilation of books written by 44 (or more) different people over the span of approximately 2500 years. This is true, but in light that so many believe that this is also the inspired Word of God–our Creator, it might be beneficial to study it from a different perspective, using philosophy as well as science. Philosophically speaking, if God was truly the Creator–all-knowing and all-powerful and the essence of Love, and if the Bible were His message to man, one would have to see it as a full work. Therefore, it should be studied as a whole, not taking passages out of context or separating them from the rest of the work to be studied alone. That is where the errors in interpretation come in.
1. What I mean by “not getting it” is this: The Bible (as a whole, remember) is a fluid message to one specific purpose: that of reuniting a fallen creation with its Creator. A person can study the Bible for a lifetime and never understand that simple message: that God made us, loves us and, because of (and despite of) our state of brokeness, sent His Son to make a way for us to be again righteous in His eyes so that we could be with Him.
Answer for Keith: How do we know when we’ve “gotten it”? Well, do you believe that Jesus is God and that He made the Way for you to be forgiven and reunited wiht Him in a dynamic, growing, living relationship? Have you accepted His payment for you? If so, then you have assurance. The Bible tells us that once we receive Christ, there is nothing that can separate us from His love (Romans 8:35 & 38-39). It also tells us that God made the way and not us by our good works or by any other means. What makes us think that by making a mistake He would suddenly pull the rug of salvation out from under our feet? If He made the Way, He will bring us through it. We only have to take the first step. (There are many passages that support this.)
2. Why wouldn’t God give spiritual truth to someone who studies it for a lifetime? I don’t think I said that God doesn’t give “any” spiritual truth to non-Christians. I think that He does give it to anyone who is seeking, even if it may not be the salvation message. In other words, I have met non-believers who have a very clear grasp of many of the spiritual truths of the Bible. I believe God gave them this insight because they were open to receiving it. Unfortunately, because they weren’t ready to hear the true message of Jesus, they still don’t really get it, even though they could rattle it off with perfect clarity to another. When they’re ready to honestly open their hearts to Him, He’ll give them that insight, too.
3. How can someone study the Bible for a lifetime and still not be “seeking”? I think there are many who study the Bible as if it were a piece of literature or a historical document. Both are true, of course, but it is so much more. These people don’t want to see God in the pages. They aren’t seeking spiritual truth, they’re seeking knowledge. If you are honestly seeking for God, though, He will reveal Himself.
Keith also asked: Is I Cor. 2:14 talking about studying the Scriptures or receiving the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Both. The Bible is one way in which the Holy Spirit speaks to us. He is not, of course, limited to only that way of communicating with us. The Bible shows us not only how effective the Scriptures are of giving us spiritual guidance (Heb. 4:12) but also that He speaks to us through many other means. Being infinitely creative, God is more than capable of speaking to you in a way in which you would understand. There is no formula for hearing God’s voice. All you need do is listen.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I’d be happy to elaborate further, if necessary. I will also be discussing related issues on my blog each week: http://www.thewritejourney.blogspot.com
Susan
Comment by: Helen
3Thanks for your response, Susan. I appreciate you taking time to answer my questions (and Keith’s).
You wrote:
This part still confuses me. If people can ‘rattle off [the true message of Jesus] with perfect clarity to one another’ in what sense don’t they get it? Doesn’t their being able to rattle it off mean they do get it?
Comment by: Keith
4Susan,
Thanks for the response. These two statements of yours were difficult to reconcile in my mind. One seems to state that God carries us through any obstacle and the other suggests that people are to blame if they do not understand. Shouldn’t Christians receive some credit for opening their hearts, if non-believers are blamed for not opening theirs? Shouldn’t non-believers’ non-belief be blamed on God if the Christians’ belief is credited to him?
In regards to knowing when we’ve “gotten it,” part of my question was asking how we know that our understanding of the Scriptures is the right one … in other words, you said that some people can study a lifetime and not “get it” … how do we know that we are the ones who are getting it?
I agree with the hermeneutical principles you described at the beginning - not taking out of context, considering how it fits in the framework of the Scriptures as a whole. However, I do not think they were adequately applied to 1 Corinthians 2. Most likely, IMHO, Paul is referencing his own preaching in Corinth that Jesus who was crucified is the Messiah. Your points about the Scripture and the Spirit are all well-taken, but do not come from this passage. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 will in fact contrast this “spiritual man” who “gets it” with the Christians at Corinth who are showing by thier in-fighting that they do not get the message of the cross. So, in this case it appears that the opposite of the man who receives spiritual truth is in fact the Christians who are fighting to be thought wise (as opposed to non-believers who have studied the Bible their whole life but do not get it).
Hope this made sense, but the point of this passage is humility - and a willingness to recognize that we have more to “get.” Please show mercy on all of us who study the Bible for a lifetime and don’t always “get it” the first time. Coming to Christ involves rigor and openness on His part and on our part. Please stop blaming plants for not being ready to harvest and rejoin the watering (1 Corinthians 3:7).
Thanks for you response, as always.
Comment by: Winn
5So let me get this straight Susan, you said:
yet you only quote verses to prove your point, a kind of prooftexting solution.
And, in response to Keith, you suggested that 1 Cor. 2.14, another verse used for prooftexting, includes Scripture, which the Corinthians did not have at the time of the writing of Paul to them. So, I guess one might be led to believe that God spoke to the Corinthians a message which they were not able to receive because they did not have the “Bible” to read. Is it really possible for a passage of Scripture to mean what the author intended it to mean when he/she penned it?
Thanks for your response, I just think your reasoning is a bit flawed.
Comment by: Helen
6Winn, thanks for dropping by - nice to see you here! :)
Excellent point about how using individual verses to prove our points goes against the principle of not taking things out of context.
Comment by: Eliza
7Susan, thanks for your thoughts and responses. I read some of the entries on your website a few nights ago, too. It strikes me that your writings on this come across as quite confident. How certain do you feel, that this explanation is correct? And, if applicable, where does certainty come from? (I hope that makes sense, as a question!)
Comment by: Helen
8Keith wrote:
Makes sense to me, Keith.
Comment by: Eliza
9I have wondered about this…if there is a personal God, then presumably He made me the way I am - which includes being a skeptic (an early and entrenched trait in me). When I go looking for Him, including reading the Bible, I do not find Him.
Is that part of His purpose? Is it a fault of mine? But then, why would I have to essentially become a different person that the one He made in order to hear, feel, or otherwise sense Him? As Susan said, I would think that God would be able to get through to me, if He chose to do so. Or, would be able to convey to me that I should listen and understand - interpret signals I do hear and read - in a different way than I am prone to do.
Personally, I don’t feel it’s honest for me to “seek” in the ways that are most likely to result in my finding the answer that the Bible promises. That feels circular; it feels like it wouldn’t be honest to me, or to God, if He (or, as I prefer, “it”) exists.
Comment by: JG
10I think for me, it is more to do with our heart response and relationship rather than academic facts or beliefs though it is hard to really explain what I mean by this.
If you read a book on how to drive a car, it probably won’t make very interesting reading unless you are learning to drive. Learning a foreign language is hard work and doesn’t make much sense at least not to me - most people say the best way to learn is by actually going to the country in question where you need to communicate in the language.
In the same way, for me, it is only as we seek to put into practice what we read in the Bible that it starts to make any real practical sense. See James 1:22-25.
But I should also say that I regard faith as a journey and that I believe the Bible can and does speak to people regardless of how far on they are in that journey.
This does not in any way respond to all the points that have been raised but are instead just one or two thoughts that occurred to me when I read Helen’s original post.
I apologise for the fact this is going off at a tangent but I read the discussion board from which this point came and noted the debate on evolution. I don’t want to open up the whole creation v evolution debate but instead want to briefly comment on the principles we use when considering issues such as these. I feel we should be consistent in our approach.
On what basis do we “believe” in evolution? Is it because:
1) it is so simple that it is self evidently true?
2) we have researched it ourselves and understand all the evidence and concluded ourselves that it must be true?
3) “experts” assure us that it is true and we “trust” that they know what they are talking about and are telling us the truth?
4) because everyone else believes it and if everyone else believes it, it must be true.
If 1) is true can someone explain it in a brief comment on this site in a way everyone else can understand?
2) comes across as a claim to know absolute truth and this approach has been described as arrogant.
3) comes across as no different to being told that we must believe the Bible because church leaders tell us it is true.
4) would lead us to believe the world was flat if we lived prior to the reformation.
People were roasted alive for daring to suggest the world was not flat. These days, we don’t roast people alive in a literal sense but how do we respond to people who dare to challenge “conventional wisdom”?
I don’t know enough about the evidence for evolution to really comment but I do know that no one alive toady was around more than say 120 years ago so for anything beyond that we must rely on what has been recorded for us (subject to satisfying ourselves that was has been recorded is true) and on what we can deduce. So because we have established that trees grow one ring each year, if a tree has 300 rings we can deduce it is three hundred years old. But such deduction depends on things being the same 300 years ago as they are now. I am fairly confident this would be the case in relation to tree rings but can we be so confident about things thousands of years ago?
I’ve done family history. If you have a rare surname and find only one family living in the area when you find say Thomas died 1844 aged 78 and a baptism for a Thomas in the same village in 1766 it is reasonable to conclude it is the same person. In my case, although reasonable, it proved to be false. Thomas b1766 moved away. A different Thomas also b1766 elsewhere moved in. Two different people but I had assumed they were one and the same person.
My limited understanding of evolution suggests it is not “proved” as such but rather is a strong theory which appears to fit most of the facts and which most people are happy to accept in the absence of any better or alternative theory.
Comment by: Eliza
11Part of the problem in discussing evolution is agreeing on what is being discussed. (Often the case, in a heated topic!) I find this webpage useful for some useful, and misleading, definitions of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
From that page, here are some misleading (incorrect) definitions, from dictionaries, and commentary:
(Remember, gravity is a theory in about the same way evolution is a theory - it explains what’s observed, in a consistent manner, and accurate predictions can be, and have been, made on the basis of each theory.)
The same page offers these definitions:
And this longer description, which by expanding the scope may start to get into areas which people dispute:
Evolution has definitely been observed in action, in animals which reproduce faster than humans (including, in the just past few decades, in Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, in response to changes in rainfall and thus food supply).
I’d phrase the basis for scientific knowledge as somewhat different from the options you listed, JG - the basis for conclusions are open & accessible in the scientific community, where debate & scrutiny are encouraged (culturally, if not by each individual as it applies to his own pet projects). It may not seem that way to someone who doesn’t have a science background, but one can read journals and books, attend lectures, contact scientists with questions, attend scientific conferences, cruise the web, even get involved in a research project if one is so inclined. Siamang (who posts on the Discussion Board more than here) has some good links to more information on evolution, including as I recall one on evolutionary theory predicting changes, and on museums that do a good job presenting fossils and other data.
Comment by: Eliza
12(Sorry to take this discussion farther afield - please resume discussion on “Only seekers will understand the Bible” - mea culpa!)
Comment by: Keith
13Eliza, I appreciate this post of yours. Which “ways” of seeking do you sense are most likely to result in your finding the answer that the Bible promises? I respect your desire to seek honestly. Thanks for providing clarity, and for your insight, as always.
Comment by: JG
14Eliza,
Many thanks for this. Will study in detail. I think my difficulty is that unless you are a scientific person, understand all the jargon and have the ability and knowledge to really understand what you are reading, you do end up having to take it on trust.
I don’t really understand electricty but I do know that when I put the plug in the socket and switch it on, the appliance I am using works - at least normally it does. I can see and test that something makes the appliance work when I connect it to the plug socket and hence don’t have a difficulty accepting the reality of “electricity” - but you can’t test evolution for yourself in the same way.
I can see how changes can and have evolved and these I believe can be easily accepted. What is harder to accept is the idea of changes that have taken millions of years to evolve resulting in radical changes such as fish like creatures in the sea to mammals. I can see how certain similarities could suggest evolution but not how such evolution can be proved as fact as opposed to theory.
On this sort of issue, what often comes across is “These people know what they are talking about therefore you must believe them” - not so different from being told you must accept the Bible is true because “these people” tell you it is true.
Incidently, you can believe in God as creator without needing to specify “how he created” - you can have evolution since creation and it is then simply a question of at what point did the creation event took place. And if the creation event was the “big bang” as some scientists believe then there need be no conflict between faith and science.
Where conflict does arise is when some say everything has come out by pure chance and that there is definitely no God. That is a reasonable view for people to take but I would argue that is a faith position rather than a scientific position. Its a faith v faith conflict rather than faith v science so far as I can see.
Comment by: Helen
15Eliza wrote:
Eliza, I see Keith has already picked up on this.
I think it’s hard for any of us to be sure that we’re assessing evidence ‘honestly’ i.e. being able to get beyond our personal reasons for wanting the evidence to point one way or the other.
I think it’s a little unfair when people say “If you didn’t come to the same conclusion as me, you weren’t being as open (honest) as I was”. I don’t think we can know that about other people. It seems rather complex to me why different people can look at the same situation/facts and interpret it/them different ways.
Comment by: Karen
16JG, I think it’s a common misconception among believers to assume that atheists say “there is definitely no god.” However, I have never met such an atheist, read about one, or heard of one.
Atheists commonly hold the position that they do not see evidence for god, therefore do not believe in god and thus choose to live life as if there is no god - pending further information. ;-)
However, they also remain open to the possibility of god, because they recognize they can’t be aware of all evidence in the universe and that there certainly may be evidence outside of our current, limited understanding that is simply not available. In that case, atheists could also be classed as agnostics.
The same can likely be said for most believers, however. They see evidence for god, therefore they believe in god and choose to live life as if there is a god. But most of them would probably admit that they can’t be aware of everything in the universe and that there may be proof that god does not exist somewhere outside our current, limited understanding.
Thus, I would conclude that both groups fall under the “agnostic” categorization, at least in some respects.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
17Wow, there sure has been a lot of posting going on while I was eating dinner.
I apologize for not being clear enough in my responses. I can see where some confusion may have come in; I’ll try to clarify.
Helen asked:
By “getting it” I mean believing it, and therefore, as the Bible promises, having the path between God and yourself opened up–being able to have your failures forgiven and entering into an open relationship with God, enjoying His love, blessings and guidance without guilt or fear. Just because you know a piece of information well doesn’t mean you believe it.
Keith said,
My first statement above was for the believer. Once you believe, there is assurance of your having received forgiveness and of your status in being viewed righteous in God’s eyes. I guess, if the believer is looking for “credit” for believing, he’s got it–an open relationship with God, forgiveness from sins and the assurance of life with God after death. That’s credit enough for me. I suppose it boils down to one belief and one choice: do you believe Jesus was Who He claimed to be or don’t you? If so, do you accept His payment for you? Only the individual can answer that question. No one else can answer it for you. I don’t know that there is any blame that can be placed on God if you don’t accept His offer. After all, He gave us free will so that the choice would be ours, not His.
Keith also asked,
For one thing, you don’t have to understand (or believe) in all of the Scriptures to believe in Jesus and accept His gift of life and forgiveness to you. People always try to fall back on study and interpretation, study and interpretation! Now, I’m not saying these things are bad, but if you truly believe that the Bible is God’s Word, why not ask Him to reveal it to you and then show you how to have the assurance you desire? This goes back to my original response: Is God a BIG God or a little god? If you truly desire an open communication with God, start talking to Him. Ask Him to reveal His truth to you. Ask Him to open your eyes to His messages. Ask Him to answer your questions. Ask Him to blow away your stereotypes and mistaken presuppositions about who He is and show you Who He is in truth. Ask Him to help you fall in love with Him and show you that He truly loves you, too. He will.
Keith also had a problem with me saying that one shouldn’t take stuff out of context and then I quoted only one verse. Yes, this is a very difficult problem to master since there is no way I could quote every single passage of Scripture on here to make my point. I quoted one verse because I felt it aptly addressed the issue at hand; that’s not to say that there aren’t many more passages of Scripture that support my earlier statements. I’m sorry that this is such a problem. I am also not sure if I understood the rest of your question. I will continue to look at it though, but wanted to post this much for now.
My husband is waiting for me to go somewhere tonight, so I’ll check back later.
Susan
Comment by: Helen
18Thanks Susan. I hope you have a fun evening with your husband tonight!
Comment by: Eliza
19JG said:
I don’t know about you, but I’m not good at accepting something just because some people say it’s true! That sure shows up when discussing the Bible; I hope not to offend people, but there seem to be so many ways that people can interpret it, that it seems (imo) impossible to conclude that there is one correct approach. So I put my 2 cents in. Though, I know there are people and groups which feel strongly that there is a correct approach (and it’s not usually my approach!).
My background in chemistry and biology make the theory of evolution, and the data supporting it, pretty easy for me to accept - I don’t know how I’d do with it if I didn’t have a science-type background. I’m interested in scientific theories about the Big Bang - they seem like they’re basically physics and math theories (string theory, etc), so I find them quite difficult to understand - but at least I feel like I have a sense how the scientists and mathematicians go about their research, and that gives me some confidence in their approach, if not in their conclusions (which seem pretty tentative anyway at present).
I agree! Just because there’s a scientific description developed for something like evolution, or even the Big Bang, does not preclude at all with the possibility that God chose that route to set his creation in motion. As Karen said was true of us atheists, personally I’m waiting for more evidence to point me that direction, but I do not think they are incompatible at all. And there are a number of Christian scientists who feel the same way. (For example, Francis S. Collins is a scientist who headed the Human Genome Project…and whose book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief was just published last month. I haven’t read it - has anyone here?)
Comment by: Eliza
20It seems to me that the only way I could come to the answer that the Bible holds out, would be to squash down my skeptical streak, because it and the Biblical account of events and of God just don’t see eye to eye. Problem is, that streak is an integral part of me - it’s a mile wide and just as deep. I’d feel antsy and uncomfortable. And, it’s so much of who I am, that it just seems dishonest - to me, and toward my creator, if there is one - to go that route.
I like what Helen said - how do we know if we (much less others) are assessing evidence honestly, not just finding what we want to find? For me, that includes a cautionary note: reading a text that presents the conclusion one should reach, might well influence a person’s evidence assessment. I’d want to be quite sure the source is impeccable & believable, before dropping all other inquiry and proceeding toward the goal it presents - and I’m not sure of that at all.
Comment by: JG
21Karen, I wholly agree with you. In my comment, I was careful to avoid using the term atheist and instead specifically referred to those who claim there is definitely no God. I have found that there are plenty of people who make that claim but when you question them, it becomes clear that most of them would probably fall into the category you describe.
Found this on the web:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html
Incidently I have found that whilst some “atheists” do come round to believing in God, the hardest group to reach are the apathetic and indifferent. Many of the “atheists” I have known are very caring and passionate people and would want to believe in and relate to God if they could be convinced of the evidence of his existence AND that he was a force for good and not bad.
Other atheists I have known are hostile to the concept of God and I suspect know in their hearts there is a God but are opposed to him. So we cannot generalise - each person is different and we must not make assumptions about where they stand or why.
On the question of “seeking” I would regard many “atheists” as seekers as opposed to the apathetic who are not. Which leaves us with the problem of why, if there is a God, he does not reveal himself to these seekers. I would rather acknowledge difficulties than pretend there are neat pat answers. I do believe there are answers but I don’t have them let alone the ability to express them succinctly. I have glimpses and impressions and ideas which get me part of the way there but that is all.
I also believe that God is fair and just, though we can’t confine and limit him to 21st century human concepts of what is fair and just. I prefer to think in terms of people being called into relationship with God and with each other rather than being “saved” or “accepting Jesus” - and would like to think that ultimately everyone will be in relationship with him one way or the other. The only people I see being excluded are those that do not want to be included. But that is not for me to decide or determine.
Eliza, many thanks for your comments. I think whilst we may appear to come from very different viewpoints, we have alot of common ground. One of the reasons why this is such a good site - thank you Helen!
Comment by: Helen
22JG, you’re welcome. Thanks for participating - your contributions help make the site as interesting as it is!
Comment by: Keith
23Susan, thank you for the response. I apologize for not being clearer in a couple of places. Please clarify what a person’s role is in coming to believe in God, and what God’s role is in helping a person come to belief in Him. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I sense that you want to focus on God’s grace & power when speaking of Christians, and of a person’s unwillingness to open their heart when speaking of non-Christians. I see this as imbalance.
Either the make-or-break thing is that God calls some people and not others … or that some people open their hearts and others don’t … or one of many other ways of looking at it. Please let me understand what you see, because I feel like you are saying that it’s because of God that a Christian is a Christian, and because of the non-believer that they are not a Christian. To take it a step further, it seems unfair (and, by the way, ineffective for what I assume is your goal - seeing atheists believe in Jesus) to produce personal guilt in a non-believer for not opening thier heart AND make them doubt whether or not they might be wanted by this God (if he exists). Please pick one area to focus on, because it is double-blame like this that encourages atheists to think of your God immoral and mean.
If this is just as unclear as my earlier post, I apologize. I look forward to your response, and appreciate your candor. Thanks.
And FYI, I have belief one way or the other on this issue … please do not interpret my questions for uncertainty. I’m just wanting to understand you better. Thanks.
Comment by: JG
24I would have thought it was both God calling someone AND that person opening their heart. Some people and traditions have tended to emphasise one or the other but I would see it as both.
So does this mean God is not calling those who “don’t get it”?
Say you came to a river and wanted to get across. A ferry is operating and can take you across. You are wholly dependent on the ferry and can’t get across on your own. In that sense your ability to cross depends completely on the ferry operator. But you can only get across if you choose to get on the ferry. Why would someone not get on the ferry? They may not trust it. They may think it is going to sink and would rather wait for a more reliable ferry to come along. It is stretching the analogy really too far but they might think the ferry is a figment of the imagination or that it is going in the wrong direction. They may not even be aware there is a ferry crossing or where to find it.
You may then say it is the ferry operator’s fault because he should make it clear to everyone that his ferry is reliable, where to find it etc. But then if we take on board the idea of spiritual warfare (eg Ephesians 6) it may be that “the enemy” (NB not people) is seeking to confuse and has sought to hide all the signposts to the ferry or point them in the wrong direction to seek to prevent as many people as possible from finding the crossing. If so the “blame” is not on the individuals but on “the enemy” - though I’m not sure how helpful the “blame game” is.
There is far more to it than this and as with any analogy it is a far from perfect illustration. Hope it helps rather than confuses but apologies if not!
Comment by: Helen
25JG wrote:
I like your word-pictures, JG!
I have a question about the part I quoted - doesn’t that imply that the enemy is more powerful than the ferry operator? It seems that way to me, if the enemy is managing to stop the ferry operator getting the information to the potential passengers that they need to be able to a) find the ferry b) trust the operator enough to get on?
Comment by: Susan Thomas
26Keith, JG, Helen & others,
I really like your description of the ferry operator. I think it explains well the question Keith asked me earlier. To answer Helen’s questions, I would say that it doesn’t imply that the ferry operator is less powerful than the enemy. (Well, maybe in real life it would, but spiritually speaking there’s a lot more going on, and as JG said, an analogy can only take us so far.) Consider this: The other side of the bank is a perfect, desireable place & we’ve all be personally invited to go there. The Owner of the land, at great expense to Himself, sent the ferry to come and offer us a ride. The enemy hates the Owner so much that he wants to thwart any attempt at reaching us. So, where are we? We’re faced with a great quandry? Who to trust? But there’s more. The Owner sees that we need more information so He sent us a book explaining the entire process. Then he sent people to us to help show us the Way to the ferry. He also set up means of direct communication throughout our land so that we could call Him up personally to get His side of the story. The Owner has made every effort to reach us, despite the enemy’s efforts, much to the chagrin of the enemy. So, unless we no longer have free will, we have a choice to make. Whose fault is it if we choose wrong? Ours. (Unless you think it was God’s ‘fault’ that He gave us free will, and would rather live your life as a mindless slave to a God you don’t truly love.) Who gets the credit if we choose right? I’d say both us and God.
JG said, though, that the blame game isn’t probably very helpful, but I understand how frustrating this issue of trusting someone else (even an all-powerful, loving God) with our hearts can be. It’s like trying to fall in love again after we’ve been betrayed by someone we trusted. My point is this: your faith is only as valid as the object in which you put it. That’s why so many religions are false–they expect you to put your faith in man (one prophet) or in yourself (works-based or meditation-based religions). They tell you to try to skip the ferry and try to swim the river yourself. They just don’t tell you that it’s an ocean length wide and filled with hungry sharks.
Keith, thanks so much for your thought-provoking comments.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
27Eliza said,
I’m sorry; I’m doing some backtracking here. I can’t seem to keep up with all the different comments. I still intend to address Winn’s question earlier, but for now I’ll comment on Eliza’s remarks.
Thanks, Eliza, for checking out my blog. I’m happy that you did and I hope you’ll stop by again sometime and leave a comment there. I suppose my confidence comes from a variety of places. I was raised Christian. My parents were missionaries in Central America and Argentina. I spent 7 1/2 years overseas by the time I was 11 years old. (Por eso puedo hablar, escribir y leer en espanol.) My father was a church planter and a pastor for about… hmmm… about 23 years?
I can say that for a while my faith was largely based on what my parents taught me and what I learned in Sunday school. Though it was all very good, I went through a period of my life where the rose-colored glasses came off, so to speak. Not that I didn’t have a true relationship with God, but I beleive He allowed me to go through a time of personal struggle and doubt so that He could bring me to a more real, more secure place in my faith. I began to question, study and push the limits. When I was in college I dated a guy who ended up being controlling, manipulative and abusive. I got pregant (our of wedlock). He wanted me to have an abortion (although he was Catholic and before I got pregnant had assured me how wrong he thought abortion was). I refused. When I was three months pregnant he and I split up and I haven’t seen or heard from him since.
You can imagine that my faith was pretty much on the rocks at that time. I was angry–so ANGRY! I was angry that God had allowed me to make such poor choices, I was angry that I had been so stupid to love someone so blindly & I was angry that my life had so quickly turned into a pile of you-know-what! I lashed out at everybody!
It’s really amazing what happened next though. Even though I knew I didn’t deserve God’s love, I asked Him to forgive me (several times, actually, though it only really takes once). I had traded in my relationship with the Creator of the universe for a relationship with an abusive man. Pretty stupid, huh? The bad part is that I knew better! At least, I knew in my head; but God allowed me to go through this–to make my own mistakes–so that my head knowledge (that God is trustworthy) made it to my heart.
And then, the most amazing, most miraculous thing happened! Despite my failures, my ugliness and my betrayal of God, He turned around and showered me with blessings beyond compare! Why? Why would God, whom I had rejected, choose not to punish me? Instead, He gave me a beautiful, perfect baby girl. She’s nine and a half years old now, but you’ve never met a more sweet, good-natured, obedient, self-sacrificing, funny kid! I don’t know where she gets it! (Certainly not from me and certainly not from her biological father!) Not only that, but God brought Aaron into my life. Actually, we met when I was seven months pregnant with her. Meeting him was like meeting an old friend. It was weird–like I was at home with a perfect stranger. And the difference between him and the other guy was like night and day! Aaron loved me, despite my mistakes, he loved my daughter and when we were married, he adopted her as quickly as possible. (She was just over one year old when we married.) Even now when people ask how long we’ve been married and then do the math of our daughter’s age, he doesn’t bother to clarify that he wasn’t the one who “got me in trouble.” Even though he was a virgin when we married, he doesn’t bother to point out that he had it all together when we married and I didn’t. In fact, he’s never hinted at such an idea, ever.
Now all of this is very subjective evidence; I realize this. But if God is the God who created us–with all of our nuances, our intellect, our emotions, our sexuality, our spirituality, etc.–wouldn’t He be able to connect with us on all levels? Well, He does with me, every day. That is why I have confidence that you, too, can have an open, loving, growing relationship with God–because He promised it and I live it.
Comment by: Rorgg
28>Other atheists I have known are hostile to the concept of God and I suspect
> know in their hearts there is a God but are opposed to him.
Be careful of this. I ended up getting into a fruitless and ultimately frustrating conversation with a pastor who maintained this was true for all non-believers, and my protestation to the contrary was just a way of trying to make contact with him so he could bring me back to the god that I really, secretly, knew was there. Really. Deep down. You believe, right? Dontcha? Even though you said no? See, when you said no there, it’s really a yes. I know. Because god told me. Because I asked. So I know. You do.
You get the point.
I don’t know of any freethinkers who actually hold this position, though it may have been a consideration that “if God really isn’t omnibenevolent, then is it the abrahamic god? and if not, does god exist?” aqnd they go on from there.
Comment by: Helen
29Susan, thanks for sharing about your life with us.
I’m happy to hear your daughter is such a blessing to you, and that God brought a man into your life who not only cares about you but was very happy to adopt your daughter as his own.
Comment by: Keith
30Now all of this is very subjective evidence; I realize this. But if God is the God who created us—with all of our nuances, our intellect, our emotions, our sexuality, our spirituality, etc.—wouldn’t He be able to connect with us on all levels? Well, He does with me, every day. That is why I have confidence that you, too, can have an open, loving, growing relationship with God—because He promised it and I live it.
Comment by: Keith
31I apologize - I block quoted the wrong part of my post … :-)
Comment by: Susan Thomas
32Keith wrote:
I have no doubt that there are some people who have never connected with God on an emotional level. I’ve met many. I can’t pretend to know exactly how God reaches out to every individual. I only know that He does. Neither do I know when He reaches out to them. I only know that He tries many times to get our attention. C.S. Lewis, in one of his Narnia books (I think one of the last ones, I can’t remember) told about some dwarves that had been thrown through a mystical door. They opened their eyes and found that they were in an old, smelly stable. It was dark and they were sitting on old, damp hay. Truly, though, they weren’t in a stable at all. They were sitting on a grassy, sunny hillside with a beautiful landscape before them. The kids that were watching them (unseen by the dwarves) asked Aslan to tell them where they were. He did, but all they heard was an annoying braying of a donkey (or something like that). They asked Him to give them something good so that they would recognize His gifts. He gave them a fantastic banquet, but all they tasted was rotting turnips. The dwarves were unable to see the truth because they were so entrenched in their desception that they couldn’t conceive of it, no matter how many times or in how many ways Aslan tried to get through to them.
I think we are this way, sometimes. We expect bad stuff to happen, we see the miserable state of things around us and we become so used to it that we can’t conceive of anything better. Even though we are surrounded by God’s beautiful creation that displays, in perfect clarity, intelligent design, we don’t see it. Even when someone explains it to us, we still don’t understand.
That’s not to say that God isn’t still trying to reach us. He is. But He is a gentleman. He’s not going to force us to believe, although He could. You say that some people have been seeking both emotionally and intellectually and still never connected with God. Well, for one thing, the only way you can know to what extent a person is seeking is if you are that person. Secondly, who is to say that they aren’t on the right path and that God is drawing them to Him at that moment? They may not be there yet, but God’s timing is not like our timing.
When I talk to atheists, I recognize that we are seeing the world from very different perspectives. I realize that they haven’t experienced God as I have. I have to be honest that I have had to re-train my tongue not to speak in “Christianese” around people of other faiths. In Argentina I learned Spanish to talk to my friends there. I didn’t expect them to learn English for me. I will do the same with my atheist/agnostic friends.
I want to thank you for continuing to be patient with me. In some ways this venue is quite wonderful in that it allows us to have ongoing conversations about things that matter in an open, honest way. (Not many places like that out there anymore, I’m afraid.) In another way, though, it’s difficult to get across the tone of what I’m feeling, sometimes. I take a very “confident” position and stance in what I am writing, but that doesn’t mean that I beleive I’m never wrong or that I can’t be instructed. Truly, the only One I believe is never wrong is God. My main purpose for joining this discussion group was to learn from atheists how to talk to atheists in a loving, non-judgmental manner without pushing my faith on anyone. I am doing my best to answer the questions put to me about faith matters, but that doesn’t mean that I expect you to take my word for it, turn, repent, accept Christ, etc., just because I’m good with words. I can’t convince anyone of anything, and that’s the truth. The Bible is actually pretty clear about how eloquent speeches don’t change hearts; God does.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
33Here is something I think you might like to read:
http://thewritejourney.blogspot.com/2006/08/spiritual-thought-5-god-show-yourself.html
Comment by: Eliza
34Susan - thanks for your responses, and for sharing your difficult experiences. I’m glad that things have turned out so well for you, including a loving family.
The Narnia series was a good set of stories. But how does it fit that I’m not seeing Aslan? I’m a dwarf so to speak - but my group of dwarves must have been on the other side of the hill, not observed by the children. From here, the universe does seem pretty darn amazing and awesome. The hillside is pretty, the grass is green, the sky is blue, and while the food isn’t incredibly delicious, it’s pretty darn good. *Sniff* nope, no aroma of animal dung. While others might say my group of dwarves is out-of-touch and missing out on marvelous awakenings, I guess I just don’t see it.
Moving from the analogy to the “real world”:
So now we get into the problem of suffering. God’s beautiful creation includes some things like earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes which have caused some pretty widespread injury, death, and destruction. Is this part of God’s plan, the problem is just that we mere humans can’t understand it as loving and just?
Comment by: Helen
35Susan wrote:
Thank you for caring about such things.
Have you learned anything new from the atheists here (or anyone else posting here) so far?
Comment by: Keith
36Susan, thanks for the additional response.
Please allow me to nerdily discuss the illustration you used above to show that atheists who do not connect with God are this way because they are like the dwarves in Lewis’ writing. C.S. Lewis’ book, “The Last Battle,” includes the aforementioned anecdote about the dwarves. In the typical understanding of the book, Aslan’s country (the other side of the stable door) is intended to represent heaven … the dwarves are thrown into heaven, but sit in their own little group and complain about everything (as you described). However, comparing them to atheists does not quite work. First of all, as original Narnians, the dwarves represent Christians, not atheists. If there are characters in that book that represent atheists or followers of non-Christian religions, it is the Calormenes. Many of the Calormenes meet their “god” Tash and are destroyed by him. Yet interestingly, we find in C.S. Lewis depiction of heaven a young Calormene who - never having believed in Aslan - nevertheless found him in paradise with Aslan. Aslan then explaining that all the good that the young man did in the name of Tash was honoring to Aslan whether it was done in his name or not. So, the dwarves described are more accurately understood as a warning for Christians than for atheists/non-believers. Lewis even seems to suggest that atheists who devote themselves to MTWABP please God. Whether one agrees or not, it is usually accepted that this was Lewis’ point.
You said,
Susan, you describe here that creation displays intelligent design in perfect clarity. What reasons would you ascribe to someone not believing in intelligent design? What do you think is the motivating factor that causes them not to believe in intelligent design? (this is a key to empathy - do you understand why someone believes what they believe)
Comment by: Helen
37Susan wrote:
Quoting from that page:
Here’s my honest response, Susan:
If your daughter comes to you with a homework problem and says “Mom, I don’t get it - can you show me how to do this?” do you look at her with love and a bit of sadness in your eyes and say “Honey, your teacher already showed you how to do this. Weren’t you listening?” and then walk away?
Or do you say “Come over here and bring your book. Which question are you stuck on? Let’s see if I can help”?
I hope you do the latter. I wouldn’t be very impressed with a parent who did the former because they would a) not be helping and b) be shaming their child - when it would be better to affirm the child for asking a good question.
It’s hard for me to be impressed by a depiction of God behaving a certain way, when I wouldn’t even be impressed if a human acted that way.
Comment by: JG
38Eliza, no easy answers, as always, limited understanding and even more limited ability to express it.
What follows is an attempt to express what I believe.
God’s plan is for us to live in relationship with him. Like a child leaving home, God lets us go and does not force his help on us. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t seek to live on our own without him but blame him (if he exists) for the bad things that do happen. What in practice happens is people say, I can’t believe in a God that would allow such things to happen.
Because God gives us freedom, this includes freedom to cause harm to others. Therefore there is no justification for saying if bad things happen, it is that person’s fault. The events you mention all appear to be natural disasters but to what extent mankind have contributed to natural disasters by eg causing global warming, building in areas that shouldn’t be devloped eg flood plains etc etc I’m not qualified to assess.
If life is limited to this lifetime then an unnatural death is an unmitigated disaster and tragedy. If there is life after death then death in this life is simply a pass into the next and puts things into a different context. If there is a life after death, which is worse - to die in in instant in a disaster or to survive and then suffer bereavement, sadness and then a long slow lingering death from cancer? Have learned tonight that an old friend died suddenly recently. Much harder for those who are left when someone dies suddenly but in many ways much better for the person in question than to suffer over a long period of time.
This is no way provides a complete answer, I fear it won’t even begin to provide an answer and may do more harm than good but I offer it as an attempt to at least begin to explain how a Christian might approach these issues.
Comment by: JG
39Rorgg (comment 28)
I fully accept your point and share your concern. Hence my comment:
I am interested in the issue of the extent to which people genuinely believe there is no God as opposed to a) not seeing any evidence that would lead them to want to live other than as if there is no God and b) deciding that if there is a God, they don’t want to know him so choose to live as if he doesn’t exist. There are probably other categories, these are just the ones that immediately come to mind.
I suspect that if something happened which left people with no choice but to accept there is a God, many people would be very angry and upset with God either because of things that have happened in their own lives and in the lives of others close to them or perhaps because of “bad things” in the world generally.
In this sense, I wonder how much the problem is over evidence for God’s existence and how much it is over how would we feel towards God if we knew that he did exist.
And this is why I see the Christian message being about reconciliation and relationship rather than about assenting to a set of beliefs.
I see the “getting it” bit as being more to do with being reconciled to God than with understanding doctrine or whatever.
Comment by: Keith
40Right on, Helen. IMO, the example given was an inaccurate picture of God.
The events you mention all appear to be natural disasters but to what extent mankind have contributed to natural disasters by eg causing global warming, building in areas that shouldn’t be devloped eg flood plains etc etc I’m not qualified to assess.
Comment by: Keith
41JG,
I could be wrong, but I think that many atheists do not believe in God because it would violate thier conscience to do so. They do not feel that the evidence in the world supports the idea that he exists. And they are not willing to pretend that he does. Thus, their decision to not believe in God is one of principle. Also, both of your options seem to infer that atheists choose in part because of how they want to live (lifestyle). It seems that you see the attractiveness of immorality as a reason to be an atheist. I know of few atheists who believe what they do because it allows them to engage in immorality. This is a common misconception. Atheists reject belief in God, not all aspects of morality.
Comment by: JG
42Helen,
Have just seen your latest comment and agree with you. I don’t see God acting in that way - but I suspect Susan doesn’t either. Her quote doesn’t mention God walking away but I appreciate that is how it can appear when you are seeking but God seems far away or appears to be acting in a way that is not very attractive.
I have some reservations about the famous footprints poem but it does mention how the person complains that God appeared to be far away when he was needed most - and points to the single set of footprints. The poem says God responds by saying it was at those times that I carried you.
But things are quite as simple as that, I know.
Comment by: JG
43Keith, please do not make rush to make assumptions about what others believe. Where have I made any suggestion that atheists don’t have principles or choose to live immoral lives?
I said at comment 21:
Your statement that:
is entirely consistent with my own understanding. What I am not clear about is the extent to which people assert definitely there is no God as opposed to those who:
as stated by Karen. I see all three categories I mentioned as positions of principle.
Comment by: Helen
44Keith wrote:
Keith, based on five years of reading IIDB (an atheist discussion board) and what I’ve read on here by atheists, I think you’re right. And I appreciate you listening well enough to atheists to pick this up. I rarely find Christians/followers of Jesus who have this good an understanding of atheists.
Comment by: Helen
45JG - you’re right that Susan didn’t have God walking away. But I do think she implied God saying “You’ve had enough help already. You should have got it by now.”
Comment by: JG
46end of my comment 42:
Apologies - typo. Should have read:
Comment by: Susan Thomas
47I understand that I possibly used the the Lewis’ example in a way possibly not intended by its author. I just liked the image that although we are often surronded by truth, sometimes we still can’t see it. If the dwarves represented Christians, which is not unlikely, they probably represented apostates, maybe? I don’t know. I seem to recall that they had helped the Calormenes during the battle, intentionally turning their backs on Aslan. Maybe they’re people who have seen the truth, known it and then, intentially rejected it. The young guy who turned from Tash to Alsan in the end was, in my opinion, a good representation of an honest seeker. He sought the true God, was confused for a time that Tash was it, but in Aslan’s perfect timing, the truth was revealed and he grabbed on to it.
Anyway, obviously, my recollection of the story isn’t nearly so crystal as yours. Also, Eliza, I don’t think that example applies to everyone exactly. Even as a Christian I have come upon new truth after new truth and find myself saying, “Dang! Why didn’t I see that before?” I suddenly can see something in a new light and realize that God was trying to get it across to me for a long time. I think this is just part of human nature.
Helen asked,
I think so. I have only been on this discussion board for about a week and only within the last few days have made many posts. (Eventually I’m going to have to cut back, though, because nothing else is getting done around my house.) I’m paying attention to how the ateists here seem to come to their conclusions. I’m taking note of how different their perceptions are. It’s all very enlightening, but I’m still very much a learner in that regards, I’m afraid.
One thing I have noticed is this, though, and I’m not sure yet how to take it. It seems (to me) that unless a Christian does a lot of apologizing and backpedalling, they are often considered by atheists and agnostics as judgmental. It’s as if some people aren’t satisfied unless they can somehow prove to themselves (by a Christian’s mistakes) that the Christian is a fool. That seems to justify their position. Well, if you want to prove that I’m a fool, I doubt it’d be that difficult. Try to prove Jesus a fool, though, and you’ll be in for a much longer stint. I’m not saying that all atheists have this approach, just some, maybe. Or, maybe I’m just paranoid and I’m imagining it. I don’t know.
Keith said,
I think people don’t believe in intelligent design because it feels stupid–like believing in fairies or elves. Furthermore, it’s unpopular–especially in the school system. Saying that you believe in God immediately opens you up to a myriad of slurs. I’ve certainly experienced it. (Add that to all the blonde jokes I hear and I doubt anyone would believe I have a brain at all.) I think the people who don’t believe in God are just as smart and discerning as the people who do. I think belief comes from an honest search, as I said before. Each path is different, though. I couldn’t begin to know all of the ways or reasons people choose for or against belief. I just try to get to know each person’s story, one at a time, as I meet them, without making assumptions.
Helen said,
You’re right, of course such a parent wouldn’t be very helpful. Neither would such a God. But here’s another quote from that same page:
God has shown us, in many ways, but that’s not to say that He not still available when we have questions or needs or even doubts. He has shown us, but He will show us again. The teacher has shown my daughter the answers, but I will certainly do everything I can to help her understand. I fully believe that if we ask God to reveal Himself to us in a way we can understand, that He will. Now, don’t misunderstand this. I’m not saying that we can look up to heaven and say, “God, if you’re there, set fire to that tree over there.” Or, “Why didn’t you just come down and speak to me plainly yourself, if you’re real.” This isn’t honest searching; this is trying to get God to jump through our hoops. We want to define His actions and we are making certain assumptions about His character when we do this kind of thing. Therefore, these are the wrong questions. It’s like someone asking me, “Susan, why did you cheat on your husband?” Well, I can’t answer that directly, because I never cheated on my husband. It’s a bad question that assumes information not yet validated. We do this to God all the time. The right question would be: “God, how did you show us Who You are? Please direct me to the Truth in the midst of the lies and give me the wisdom to recognize it and the ability to accept it.”
JG said,
Exactly right. I’m sorry to have used such vague language in the first place. (Yet another way I’m learning from the atheists and everybody else on this discussion board.)
Comment by: Keith
48Susan,
Thank you for discussing this stuff. Good luck to you and your family, and I appreciate your willingness to engage with all the other demands on your time. Keep seeking to empathize - if you want to help anyone, then you must get to know them first. Thank you again for all of this.
By the way - in case you don’t already know - I am a Christian. If it seemed like I was debating too intensely with you, it is because I care about the atheists here, and because I want you to avoid some initial pitfalls in your relationship with them. Good luck, and again, God’s best to you and your family. Thanks.
Comment by: Keith
49JG,
I apologize for my assumption. The source of my assumption was that in the first option of why atheists believe you used the phrase, “not seeing any evidence that would lead them to want to live other than as if there is no God.” “Want to live” made me think you were seeing this as lifestyle preference. In the second option you used the phrase, “they don’t want to know him so choose to live as if he doesn’t exist.” “Choose to live” made me think you were seeing this as lifestyle preference. Again, I apologize for my assumption … please know that the assumption was made on the basis of these two phrases, and that I said that your words “seem to infer” this.
Thank you for all that you are bringing to these discussions. I am glad to hear that we are on the same page. Thank you, as always.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
50Wow, Keith, you sure had me going there for a while! Ha! Ha! I really appreciate what your’re trying to do, both for me and for the rest of the people here. I was actually going to say, believe it or not, that I wished you were a Christian because you’d make a much better aplogist than I do. I don’t really think of myself as much of an apologist, actually. More of a Christian philosopher, maybe. I simply don’t have the memory for details that some people do. I have to go back and do research and stuff to refresh myself and that means a lot of time. I’ll do it, of course, but people end up having to wait on me. (Actually, I can’t stand the word “apologetics” –as if we have to apologize for Christ or something. Any apologizing I do is goign to be based on my own mistakes or those of the failures of religion as a whole.)
Thanks again.
Comment by: Susan Thomas
51I would like to backtrack slightly to some of the earliest comments. There were questions raised then that I never fully addressed and I wanted to try to do that, in case anyone is still waiting on that. (Like I said, when it comes to detailed stuff, people end up having to wait on me. Sorry about that.)
Anyway,
I said,
Then Keith said in comment 4,
Keith, I guess I don’t understand the difference between Paul preaching about Jesus being the Messiah in Corinth and the same message put forth to us by the Bible. If one needs the Holy Spirit’s guidance to see the truth in Paul’s direct message, so do we in receiving it second hand, right? Perhaps I’m just confused. Anyway, I may have addressed the “babes in Christ” thing later on somewhere, but in case I didn’t, I also agree that later on, even as Christians, we still have much to learn from the Spirit of God. All spiritual truth is spiritually discerned, no matter what your starting point is. Isn’t that the meaning of the passages in question? Didn’t Paul say in verse 11, “No one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”? I think that applying that verse only to Paul’s preaching to the Corinthians at that single moment would be minimalizing its intent. Please clarify if I misunderstood your comments.
Winn also added,
Certainly, they didn’t have the Bible as we have it back then, but they had this letter. I don’t think I fully understood your first question. I’m sorry. I don’t think that God spoke to them in a way that they couldn’t receive it, though. Perhaps there are times when He speaks but we don’t listen, though. Still, I don’t think I’m doing justice to your question, though. Please clarify if I’m not.
In response to your second question,
I think yes, it is. I think, though, that the Bible often goes deeper than just the surface words. That is why a person can study it forever and still learn something new every time they read it–even if they’ve read that same passage a hundred times. I think most of the Bible is pretty straight forward, but there are deffinitely times when the Spirit needs to guide us in full understanding, as well. That’s what makes the Bible so fascinating to me. It’s not just a book, it’s an avenue to a rich, one-on-one conversation between my spirit and God’s.
Comment by: Helen
52Susan wrote:
Susan, I apologize if I misrepresented how you presented God by focusing on one small part to the exclusion of some other things you wrote.
It was not my intention to misrepresent what you wrote.
I don’t know if I can explain what bothers me about this and other things you’ve written, but I’ll try. It bothers me that the answer to ‘why?’ questions seems to come down to - it’s always my fault and it’s never God’s. If I misunderstand God’s will it’s my fault. If I’m not where I hoped to be spiritually or in overcoming my problems it’s my fault. I’m tired of theology which seems to focus on how everything is my fault. I just want to get on with my life and do my best and not focus on the long list of things I need to confess to God yet again because - surprise! - I wasn’t perfect in thought, word and deed today.
Comment by: Karen
53JG wrote:
Boy, you’d definitely hate the church my friend belongs to: The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic.” Their motto: “We don’t know, and we don’t care.” ;-)
http://apatheticagnostic.com/
I don’t suspect that any atheists - hostile, angry or indifferent - know in their hearts that there is a god. If they knew that, they wouldn’t call themselves atheists, would they? But maybe you know something about their hearts that they don’t.
Well, I was a conservative evangelical for 30 years. I thought that god “revealed himself” to me multiple times. It was only after several difficult years of prayer, research and gradual understanding that I recognized that that “still small voice” in my head wasn’t a supernatural power - it was just little old me, all along. :-)
Comment by: Karen
54Susan, thanks for telling us the story about your husband and your daughter. I am so glad that things worked out well for you. It sounds like you found an absolutely wonderful guy. :-)
But it makes me unbearably sad that you would say things like this:
Women wind up in abusive relationships all the time, and they absolutely should not blame themselves or call themselves “stupid.” It’s the man who was abusive to you and then you abandoned you when you were pregnant. Heap all the scorn on him that he deserves, but don’t condemn yourself because you fell in love with the wrong person and did exactly what comes naturally - you had sex. Everybody does that at some time in their lives, I think.
As for thinking that god would “allow” you to be abused in order to teach you a lesson, and that you deserved “punishment” from him - again, that truly makes me sad.
There is an unfortunate misogynist streak running through Christianity (and many other religions). I hate to see women buying into it. :-(
Comment by: JG
55Keith,
Thanks and noted.
It was actually Karen who used the phrase “choose to live”:
See comment 16 which also said:
I was simply seeking to express the question in the terms Karen had used. On reflection I agree with you that the phrase “choose to live” is potentially unhelpful and best avoided.
Comment by: Helen
56JG wrote:
JG thanks for being such a great listener.
Comment by: Helen
57Karen, I think I’m having a similar reaction to yours, to some of what Susan writes.
To me it’s somewhat complex and related to issues of “Christianese” - because when I was a conservative Evangelical I would say things and they seemed good to me. I wasn’t being ‘abused’ by theology as much as it might have seemed to an outsider if I said things like “I don’t deserve God’s love”- because that didn’t mean I thought I was worthless. It was more a theological statement intended to say how amazing God’s love is.
I think it’s very hard for outsiders to hear it the way conservative Evangelicals hear it, rather than as a sad statement implying that a person’s theology is inappropriately putting them down. I can’t even hear it the conservative Evangelical way any more. But I want to remember how I used to hear it when I was a conservative Evangelical, so I can be fair to those who use language that way.
I don’t want to tell them they’re being [psychologically] ‘abused’ if they aren’t. In some ways I think they are being psychologically abused (because I think I was, looking back) which makes it all the more important for me to separate what is a difference in language from what substantively compromises the psychological freedom of human beings.
I don’t like to write about other people as them, making assertions about their motives, etc. so please understand that all I’m doing is reflecting on my own experience and guessing that I’m probably not the only one affected in certain ways by conservative Evangelicalism.
Also, Karen, please don’t read this as critical of what you wrote. Rather, it’s my own ongoing attempt to analyze where I’m at and what bothers me and why.
Comment by: JG
58Karen, first the term “atheist” appears to cover a range of positions and not just one limited viewpoint or stand.
Secondly, there are those who previously called themselves atheists who now say they are Christians. What they say about their previous beliefs is of some relevance.
And then to use yet another analogy, what about people who disown their parents or children. Years ago, when my next door neighbour died, his obituary stated he left a widow and one daughter. In fact, there was also a son but the widow had disowned him so she made no reference to him in the obituary. Why would she say she had no son when she did? These things happen. She may have considerable justification for disowning her son, I don’t know and can’t comment.
Some people say there is no God. For some this will be because they see no evidence for God, for others this will be because if there was a God then why does he allow so much suffering in the world etc etc and they can’t believe in such a God. Is this really evidence there is no God or is it more a question of if there is a God, is he a God we want to know or have anything to do with?
Some will “disown” God and act as if there is no God. Others will feel God has “disowned” them just as parents and children disown each other.
Comment by: JG
59Helen, thanks for your kind comments.
This response is more in relation to the middle part rather than the ‘why’ questions. I dislike the sort of Christianity that emphasises “fault” and which leaves people feeling as you do. But yet again, I feel it is a matter of getting the right balance. Using your mother and child illustration, if a child is secure in his or her (let’s say her) mother’s love and acceptance, she will feel able to share difficulties, struggles, mistakes with her mother. She will feel able to ask for help with her homework even if the mother has shown her the same thing time and time again. And it is also about having such security in the mother’s love that no matter what you have done, no matter how badly you have messed up, nothing you can do can cause your mother to reject you.
That is how I see the relationship between people and God. When relationships go wrong, allegations of blame arise. As mentioned previously, I see the Christian message as being about reconciliation rather than about blame. So I struggle with the type of Christianity that emphasises blame.
Comment by: Helen
60JG I see what you are saying but please bear in mind that even if millions of people say “when I was an atheist, I did know God existed but was denying it” it’s still (imo) inappropriate to assert that this is the way it is for every atheist. And it’s very invalidating and disrespectful to tell an atheist that their own self-understanding is wrong. You didn’t but I’ve seen Christians do that to atheists many times. I find it disrespectful and inappropriate and I understand why any line of discussion that seems to be going down the road of “Are you sure you don’t in fact know God exists and are simply in denial?” is likely to make atheists defensive - they’ll be thinking “Oh no, here we go again”
I’m sure there are things Christians have heard so many times from people who aren’t Christians that they feel defensive at any mention of them - I’m sure it works both ways.
Comment by: Helen
61Clarification - JG, my last comment to you was in response to what you wrote to Karen, not in response to yours right above mine.
Ok, in response to your comment #59, I’m realizing more and more that it’s not the theology per se which bothers me, it’s the implications it has for some people. Like you - it concerns me when the implications of someone’s theology is “it’s all my fault” - which I often see. I have no problem with that person believing in God but I so wish they could do it in a way that didn’t make everything their fault. I hope that makes sense.
Comment by: Helen
62Thanks Susan. Feel free to get your work around the house done! Also bear in mind that a short acknowledgement or response sometimes is enough. I think what people most want to know is that you’re listening and taking what they say seriously.
I’m a person who tends to have a lot of words - I often have to remind myself that I might want to say them more than other people want to hear them. So, even when I think I want to say my words because I’m convinced other people could be ‘helped’ by them, I need to guard against my true motivation being “I want the attention and affirmation I get when I talk and you listen and say ‘well said’ or ‘that really helped’. I find it’s so easy for me to be in denial of how much what I’m doing is actually for ME at least as much as it is for anyone else.
And here I am, still talking ;). Oh well. I’m a work-in-progress :)
Comment by: Julie Marie
63haha me too, Helen! I can’t tell you how many posts I have erased before hitting submit b/c they were way TMI. And sometimes I feel like I still, even with pushing delete, say too much…like those times I check the DB and see “Julie Marie” on almost every thread…good grief! I didn’t know I had so many opinions on so many topics!
**and btw, I like listening to you**
Comment by: JG
64Helen, I wholly agree. I was attempting to say this when I said: “So we cannot generalise - each person is different and we must not make assumptions about where they stand or why.”
Use of the words “many” and “other” would indicate I’m suggesting a much smaller number fall in the “other” category. And even there, I’m acknowledging the position to be one of principle and integrity - there are very valid reasons for believing that if there is a God, we wouldn’t want to believe in him because of all the suffering he allows in the world etc etc I believe there is an answer to those reasons but I can understand why people are not satisfied with the answers the church gives them or that I can attempt to give them.
I believe you can have very different and opposing beliefs and yet still have great respect for one another and friendship.
Comment by: Helen
65Julie Marie - yes, what would I do without that delete key? :)
I like listening to you too. It helps a lot to find people who understand in a world where many of the people we hoped would, don’t seem able to anymore.
Comment by: Helen
66JG:
Thanks for the further clarification of your position. I do think it can be helpful when we’re discussing sensitive issues.
That’s a belief we have in common…I’m strongly hoping it turns out to be true!
Comment by: Karen
67I understand completely, Helen, and I do very much know what you are saying about your self-analysis. And yes, I do see where Christianese comes into this discussion.
I think, though, that it may be useful to point out that sometimes what we say really reflects deep down how we think and feel - even if we’re using shorthand or jargon that doesn’t mean exactly what the words would mean if they were used in non-jargon context (yikes! I don’t know if that makes sense … )
Anyway, when someone says “I don’t deserve” something or “I’m stupid” or “I should have been punished” (and I’m not talking about Susan specifically here, but more in a general sense) - I think it does possibly reflect that “original sin” mentality that I find is a negative influence on both the individual and the societal level. And maybe it also reflects a misogynist mindset that says women should be punished if they fall for a guy who turns out to be an abuser, or if a woman has sex (a pretty natural impulse) before marriage. Oftentimes, it’s the woman who is disproportionately held “accountable” in both Christian and non-Christian circles for those things.
Comment by: Helen
68Karen - I agree.
Comment by: Susan
69Karen & Helen,
Karen said,
I think you may have a point here. I’m not sure what I meant by “I didn’t deserve God’s love”. I will have to rethink if that’s even true. Thanks.
As far as God allowing me to make my own mistakes, I could go back to the child and the schoolteacher analogy Helen brought up earlier. My kid may need my help studying for a test. I may offer it, but she can also refuse to listen or choose to cheat or choose to not study for the test, or whatever. Then, when she takes the test, surprise!, she may very well get a bad grade. In order for her to learn her lesson, though, I have to let her make that mistake. If I go in there and take the test for her, she’ll never learn. I think this is how our relationship with God is sometimes–at least, it was for me at that time. I would hate to see my daughter go through that and would try my best to prevent it (as I believe God did for me–I could give examples) but at some point I have to let her learn her own lessons–not because I don’t love her, but because I truly do. I think I learned mine though that experience. I didn’t suffer from that “seeking after abusive men” cycle that many women go through. Now I recognize those types and avoid them like the plague! Furthermore, my husband isn’t like that at all.
Thanks, though. I feel that I can learn a lot from both of you (and the others here, too.)
Comment by: Susan
70OK, I’ve thought about it. I think that maybe, since God created us, He has an obligation to us and, therefore, we do deserve His love. Do you agree? I think about my children and think, “Do they deserve my love, even though they never asked to be brought into this world?” Heck, yeah! So, in that sense, I think we deserve God’s love and attention, too. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we get to dictate precisely how He expresses it. Sometimes my kids think that the best way for me to express my love for them is to let them eat candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Uhhh…. I think not!
Comment by: Helen
71Susan wrote:
I like your analogy - I think I’d rephrase what it implies as “it’s reasonable to say God has a responsibility towards those he creates, to take care of them”.
I prefer to say it that way than to talk about ‘what we deserve’ - considering a creator’s responsibility to people he/she creates seems a better way to approach the issue, imo.
One advantage of the approach that God has a responsibility to us is, it avoids taking things in the me-centered direction saying “I deserve things from God” might do.
If God has a responsibility then part of that responsibility is deciding how much say to give the people he creates in decision-making. Just as we decide that with our children and in general, we give them progressively more say as they grow up and become more able to make wise decisions.
Comment by: Susan
72Helen,
I think you’re right. I guess I never liked the word “derserve” either when referring to God. The guy I was seeing (that I mentioned earlier) was a user of people. His rational was that he deserved every good thing in life (no matter who else it hurt) because he had suffered in his life. He had endured poverty, so now he derserved material things (even if he had to manitpulate people) and he had endured other (always very vague to me) hardships, so now he deserved that other people made sacrifices for him so that he could have his own way in everything. If I called him on it, he’d simply say that I never endured such hardships, so I couldn’t possibly understand. It was truly infuriating! (Actually, though, in the poverty area, thanks to him I lived for over a year on only $100 a month.)
I prefer to live as in the “don’t expect anything; just be happy for what you have” mentality. I see, though, how that also could be taken to an extreme in some cases.
Comment by: Helen
73Susan wrote:
I understand what you’re saying - appreciating what I have makes me much happier than focusing on what I think I deserve, and getting angry when I’m not getting it.
I think the way to avoid “don’t expect anything” turning into “you can abuse me” is to have good personal boundaries - like the ones described in the Christian books about Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend.
Comment by: Susan
74Helen,
True.
Comment by: Helen
75Susan, way to go on short comments! LOL :)