Posted by Helen on: 01.16.2007 /
Pete Strobel posted this to me in a comment on Church Rater. I’m reposting it here since it relates to things I’ve written here as well as the particular topic he was commenting on.
I’d like to write my comments mostly to you, in dialogue with you about your thoughts about God, Church and the Bible, but obviously anyone can respond as well.
I read the newspaper article that you wrote, and the first thing that jumped out at me, or crept out by degrees, was the way you looked at the Bible. Here’s a quote from your article:
“Can I afford to be this trusting and accepting about everything concerning God and the Bible? Is it wise of me to so heavily discount what I see and hear just because it doesn’t easily fit what the Bible says? Maybe what I should be discounting is what the Bible says, not the evidence of my own eyes and ears.”
What it appears to me is that what you needed to do was to reject the God of the Bible by rejecting the Bible that was presented to you as God. There are a whole lot of churches out there that literally worship the Bible, or hold it on divine terms, rather that believe that it is a dialogue between humanity (early primitive Hebraic/Semitic humanity) and what they perceived as God. I use all those qualifiers because I think they make a difference. I don’t think of the Bible as “God’s Word.” I believe it itself would call itself “Our Words to God, and God’s Words to Us as far as we are able to Understand Them.” For instance: all the OT slashings, killings, murders, taking over Palestine: that was only sanctioned by God in the most primitive sense: Humanity didn’t understand ANYTHING else. The ideas of Jesus, St. Francis, Gandhi, MLK and a host of peacemakers since were not comprehensible as far as I can tell by those older cultures. That’s why when Jesus finally did come he was sooooo misunderstood. He was breaking the mold. The fact that when Christians talk about His blood washing them clean sounds so primitive, violent, unnecessary, barbaric, etc.. for me proves that the Atonement (via the cross) was effective. The OT violent sacrificial system halted rather abruptly at that point. Not a single turtledove, lamb, bull, or person has needed to be slaughtered since Jesus’s death. I don’t think that God ever enjoyed those bloody sacrifices, or needed them. I say that not because the OT says it (although it alludes to that in Hosea 6:6 “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.”)–I say that God never enjoyed all the violence attributed to Him because there are reasons, evidence and a whole more recent tradition that discounts or better transforms a strictly OT understanding of God. One must be willing to let the Bible be human-written, not God dictated.
Helen: I’ve read so much that you have written and others have written. I guess I would like to invite you to not give up on the God of Reality, even if you have little place in your heart for the God of the Bible. From the beginning, I think the Bible was compiled slowly but surely as just a whole bunch of people’s musings, reflections, hopes, frustrations and prejudices, in DIALOGUE with God, as well as they could muster. Sometimes they understood God fairly well (as with Hosea 6:6 quoted above), and a whole lot of the time I think they got in the way of what God was saying… How do you tell the difference? Use your reason, experience, tradition (recent and ancient), other’s experiences, etc… Like you have been doing. But leave open the possibility of just talking with God like you do to anyone.
When it comes down to it, I personally would like NO ONE to give up on God. Keep talking, keep hoping, keep working for justice, even if theology, doctrine, Bible, Churchiness, Religion,,,etc all seems messed up. I really do believe that God remains beyond all our efforts to define Him/Her or box Him/Her in.
And naturally I could be wrong.
Comment by: Helen
1Thanks for your comments, Pete. I appreciate you taking time to share them with me. And I appreciate that you wrote them because you care.
I’m not sure exactly what that means. Excuse me if this sounds cynical: it seems like it means you can ignore the bits in the Bible you don’t like because ‘we didn’t really understand what God was saying’ or ‘that was actually our words to God not his to us’. By whose authority do you decide what to take literally and what not to? What makes you more right that people who say the Bible IS the Word of God? Why should I believe you? I’m just asking ;-)
But I assume from your later comments that you do believe God very directly sanctioned the cross?
I think it sounds that way because it was written about 2,000 years ago. (Which I think is similar to what you believe about the OT violence, according to your earlier comments) In the West we’ve moved away from that level of violence (to some extent) over the last 2,000 years and the further we get from it the more barbaric it seems (imo).
Yes it did – because the temple was destroyed! So there was no longer anywhere to make sacrifices! Instead, the Jewish leaders reinterpreted their law so that prayers (and maybe other observances that were still possible) would suffice instead of sacrifices.
I respect your opinion but again, what reason do I have to believe what you say? It is just your opinion, right?
The only God I can conceive of as possibly existing at this point is one doesn’t think in terms of “Oh no, is she giving up on me?” That God would care how I treat other people – that would be his only major concern. He doesn’t mind whether I talk to him or not.
If you can give me a reason to think that the God you believe in who actually cares whether I talk to him or not is more likely to be what God is really like than my God who doesn’t mind, please do.
I can’t do that Pete – I can’t talk to God like anyone else. With anyone else I can record what they said and know I didn’t imagine it.
With God I don’t know if I’ve just imagined a whole conversation in my head. Should I test the conversation to see if it sounds like God? If so against what? My picture of God that I made up? That’s rather too circular for me.
When someone else addresses me and I hear them and know I didn’t just imagine what they said, I respond. I would do no less for God.
The ball is in his court. If he doesn’t choose to address me clearly enough I know it’s not my imagination then I’m not going to respond. I see no reason to.
Absolutely – that’s my plan!
Comment by: NCxian
2Helen, I’m curious. Why do you think this is the piece of what you once thought of as “God” by virtue of your fundy training that you hang on to?
Comment by: Helen
3NCxian, maybe it’s because it was something I already cared about before I became a Christian. I remember holding doors open for people as a teenager and visiting lonely old ladies because those seemed like kind things to do and I wanted to be kind.
That might be why – BICBW ;-)
Comment by: benjamin ady
4really? Hmmmmm…. Or maybe we’ve just put more layers between ourselves and the current ongoing reality of that level of violence? (just asking. How many people, percentage wise, *and* straight up total numbers wise, died by violent means, in say, 2006, compared to say … B.C.E 500?)
Perfect! Is one of the messages of the emerging church “Christianity can be/is about the things that are already/naturally very important to you”?
Comment by: Helen
5Globally, yes, there is a still a lot of violence. And maybe it’s not good to be as sheltered from it as we are because maybe it makes us too complacent.
Hmmm…I know too little about the emerging church to comment. I was mostly just saying that I don’t give evangelical Christianity the credit for giving me the idea that being kind to people is a good thing to do. Because I already thought of it before I was a Christian.
Comment by: Pete Strobel
6Helen, you always pose such excellent and frank/candid questions. Hmmm.
How do I know that God hears my prayers, or do I sense that God responds to my prayers?
Hmm. That seems to be the crux of the issue. My response may seem lame, and totally inadequate. Faith. But I don’t believe it is blind faith. Say “Trust.”
Okay, so I should back some of this up with evidence, or at least some rational arguement.
Here’s what prayer does for me. Obviously it could just be psychological conditioning of the self-help type. When I pray I am more at peace, and I feel inwardly strengthened, more clear=headed, and directed. When I talk to myself (which I also do to figure things out, or organize my thinking) I don’t have the same experience. When I express thanks to God in prayer, or I sing to God, I likewise feel more whole, at peace. I am closer to shalom with my family, others, neighbors, etc. I also experience gratitude for the things around me; I feel less greed and jealousy. I don’t know if such “feelings” or redemptive responses to the world would be possible just through my own imaginings or self-delusion. Perhaps.
You mentioned that caring for other people is important to you. Why?
Now for me I would say that caring for people is paramount, essential as well. Ultimately I think the reason I do care, can care, am motivated to care, empowered to care is because of God. The NT says that God is Love, and we love because He first loved us. How does selfless, sacrificial, all-encompassing love just arise from, sssayyyy an Evolutionary process, that is from (ultimately) mud? I can’t see it that way myself.
Now I will admit: after 30plus years of being a Christian, I don’t or I still haven’t heard God speak to me unequivocally in the ways that other people do. But I don’t know that He *can*. However, I think that the traditions, teachings, examples, revelations shared with us from others indicate that God does communicate with us in other ways that we can not exactly reciprocate. Therefore our response should include voicing our communication through prayer and praise (a lower and less effective communication, but the best we can muster given our created nature.) I think God communicates to us through other people’s love, through the balance and abundance of Nature, through the creation of our senses so that we can enjoy each other and enjoy Nature. I think He communicates with us through our conscience as well. We have an innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Why else do we call some things good and others evil? Yes, there are some cultural differences, but consider how many things we all DO agree on as good or evil. I just can’t understand or believe that that arises “naturally” through evolution or some other such process. I think it is given to us by God, because He wants us to care for each other. And, like any parent, He also longs for relationship.
Sure, parents are willing to put up with being ignored or taken advantage of by their children: Good parents keep giving, loving, paying the bills, preparing meals, clothing their children, etc… even when their children complain or ignore them. BUt yet, good parents still desire that their children show appreciation, and love in return. It is the nature of love and it doesn’t mean that love is self-seeking. Love loves so that it may increase and be a further blessing, and part of that is a desire that those who are beloved likewise learn to love: for their own good and further maturation. For that reason I think God desires our prayers, even if He doesn’t exactly need our prayers.
Comment by: benjamin ady
7Alas, despite a reasonable effort to follow your latest response, Pete, I find I am completely stymied. Maybe it’s because I’ve been working on talor series for 7 hours. (hehe). But I don’t think that’s totally it. I … generally feel an inability to follow the entire set of discourses of this type. I’m working on being a better listener, so I think I ought to come back and read it again later.
However, having said that, I find that I have an easier time following specific (detailed) personal story. Maybe I can ask you a question. Curiousity is probably a good thing in relationships. So…
If we leave out the “unequivocally …” part, have you heard god speak to you? I bet you have at least one fascinating experience along these lines. Would you share it, with sensual (that is, engaging the five senses) detail?
Comment by: Helen
8Pete, thanks for your response. Regarding Benjamin’s question – my guess is that God does not speak to you through your senses. Am I right?
Regarding prayer: should I try to persuade you out of praying because it didn’t work for me? I see no reason to, since as best you can tell it’s beneficial for you.
So why are you trying to persuade me to pray, after me telling you it didn’t work for me (i.e. I didn’t find it beneficial)? Don’t you believe me? Is it irrelevant that it doesn’t work for me? Do I have to set aside what works and doesn’t work just because “God desires it”? If so then isn’t God selfishly demanding I do things that demonstrably were unhelpful to me? And if God is like that why would I want to talk to someone like that? (I’m just asking…see, my questions never get me to “Wow, praying sounds like a great idea – why did I ever stop? – I’ll start again!” )
I’ve observed that making other people happy makes me happy, so it’s a win-win situation. From that I conclude I may as well engage in it when I can.
I’ve already figured out the ‘why’ question is unresolvable so I’m not going to go there. Well, ok, just for a moment ;-) Maybe it’s because of God; maybe it’s because natural selection favored people who value being nice to either other. (This makes sense because those groups would survive best) I don’t know why and I don’t see that anything would be gained by me by discussing it further.
With all due respect, I don’t like this analogy at all because I think it misleads people into thinking it’s good to be immature.
Children grow up and then it is wrong for them to be dependent on their parents and wrong for the parents to take care of them or assume authority over them. Once they are grown up their parents value their ability to be independent and transition to an adult-adult relationship with them.
I am not a child anymore. I’m not interested in having a Big Parent in the sky who invalidates my adult capabilities such as independent thought and looking after myself. I have a brain and I’d like to use it.
I know this may sound like arrogance to Christians but only because the parent-child analogy has misled them. It is no more arrogant than an adult child leaving home and saying “I’ll go take care of myself now”. That’s not arrogance. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.
As I read the last section I found myself wondering: why does God need you to plead his case?
If he’s a great guy who I’d love to talk to if only I knew that, he can find a way of getting that information to me, can’t he? He’s all-powerful, right?
If he can’t get that information to me I’ll stick to talking to those people who can. There are plenty of human beings who’ve managed it so far.
For some reason this conversation is reminding me way too much of a pattern in my life where someone comes to me and tries to persuade me: “Authority Figure is right. YOU are wrong. Shape up.” I don’t know if the stories about Jesus are true but even so I like that in them, everyone who said that to Jesus was wrong.
Comment by: Karen
9I agree. The other problem with the parent analogy comes about if you take it to its logical conclusion. For instance, most parents love their children and want the best for them even if they rebel and are unaccepting ingrates. If flawed human parents can be steadfastly supportive even of their estranged offspring, why can’t god do the same? In other words, doesn’t the fundamentalist Christian idea that god sends his “estranged offspring” to eternal punishment mean that he’s not even as “moral” as the best humans?
Comment by: JG
10Helen,
As I understand it, Peter was using this parent-child analogy simply in response to your comment that God:
“doesn’t mind whether I talk to him or not.”
This analogy is more relevant to adults and their relationship with their parents rather than to children.
Parents do let their children leave home when they reach maturity and let them stand on their own feet and be independent. But this doesn’t mean they don’t mind whether or not their adult children have any contact with them.
One other thought. A good employer relates well to his staff and treats them well. But even the best employer may occasionally have to dismiss an employee in extreme circumstances. He will do so with great reluctance and sadness as a last resort and will leave the door open for the employee to return should he wish to do so.
It would be quite wrong in such circumstances for someone to go around emphasising how the boss will sack you if you get the slightest thing wrong and how he takes great delight in sacking employees and making them suffer.
That is why I objected to Kristian’s comments (Mars Hill).
Comment by: JG
11I’m sorry but I disagree though I don’t think it is either one or the other but rather it is both human written and inspired by God. When we focus on one and leave out the other, I think we move into error.
When I read the Bible, I see each part as reflecting the character of the person writing it. So the style of say Isaiah is very different from the style of say Jeremiah. Leaving aside issues of who actually wrote them, the human writers were clearly very different personalities.
I see this as one of the strengths of the Bible – the range of different personalties involved in writing it. Yet they are IMO all inspired by God so there is a common thread running through all their writings and unifying them into a single book.
Say you had an inspiring teacher or lecturer at school of University who had a great impact on his students. Then imagine those students then each wrote on the subject they were studying under that teacher. They would write in different ways and express things differently but all would reflect the teaching they had received.
This is a very imperfect analogy. Perhaps better to think of a group of people who all went on say an expedition to Everest. The truth of that expedition would be best represented by the sum total of their writings but not by any one writing on their own. All the writings are inspired by the expedition but each reflects the character of the individual writing them.
The Old Testament is difficult to grapple with but if we dismiss it all as just slashings, killings, murders etc then IMO we are fundamentally misunderstanding what the OT is really all about.
Comment by: JG
12Karen, my experience of Church suggests a much wider range and depth of views amongst those you appear to label as fundamentalists than appears to have been your experience.
Can you clarify to what extent you have experienced a range of views amongst the fundamentalists you have encountered?
Comment by: Helen
13Karen wrote:
Exactly – good point, Karen. Thanks.
Comment by: Helen
14JG wrote:
Yes, but, JG, parents who want their children to talk to them are willing to talk to their children. No parent says “I would like you to talk to me but to find out what I’m saying back to you, go read a book I wrote a while ago – or close your eyes and imagine what I might say to you.”
If God would talk to me so I knew it was not just me imagining what sorts of things God might say, I’d be happy to talk back.
As I said, the ball is in his court.
Comment by: Helen
15JG wrote:
JG, I haven’t experienced much range among Bible-believing Christians on the issue of the eternal destiny of people who choose not to accept Jesus as Savior – which I think is what Karen was referring to. Have you experienced much range?
Comment by: JG
16Helen,
Yes, I think there is a great range of views. Are all Bible believing Christians like Kristian? Not in my experience.
I recall a debate on this theme on Jason Clark’s site not so long ago.
There are differences over what the truth is. There are also differences over how we interpret that truth.
So we might say that yes, if someone is determined to reject God and have nothing to do with him, God will not force that person to spend eternity with him.
But we may vary over the extent to which ultimately, people will reject God. I do not believe it would be fair for people to be excluded unless they fully understood what it was that they were rejecting and what the alternatives were.
1 Samuel 16 says God looks on the heart not the outer appearance. So even if so far as the world is concerned, soneone is not a Christian and even if that person themselves does not believe in God even on their deathbed, that doesn’t mean to say that in their heart they have rejected (IMO) the true God – they may simply have rejected an expression of God which is far from the truth and which they are right to reject.
So I don’t exclude anyone and don’t want anyone to be excluded. But I do believe there will be some who really don’t want to spend eternity with God even if they had the opportunity to fully understand all about it. And I don’t believe God will force them to against their will.
And I have no idea what “eternity” means. My focus is on the here though I don’t believe tht is all that matters.
Some (many I hope) hope and want as many as possible to be included. Others appear to take great delight in talking about how people are going to suffer eternal torment.
There is (IMO) a range of views and a range of ways of expressing those views.
Comment by: Helen
17JG wrote:
See, I just don’t get that at all. How can anyone in their right mind conclude that eternal torment is better than eternity with God?
Comment by: Karen
18JG, I haven’t found a range of views amongst the fundamentalists I’ve encountered. The very term – adhering to certain rock-solid “fundamentals” of orthodoxy – seems to negate the idea that there’s a range of views to be experienced there.
I’m sorry if my use of the term “fundamentalist” is imprecise or somehow bothers you.
I use it to differentiate a certain “brand” of Christianity, probably best characterized by its viewpoint that the bible is literal and inerrant, from other “brands” that are far more wide-ranging in terms of the views that are considered acceptable.
In reference specifically to the topic of eternal punishment, many non-fundamentalists seem not to believe in hell. So I didn’t want to make a broad-brush assumption about Christian belief including hell, when that’s not accurate for all Christians.
I hope that helps explain it.
Comment by: JG
19I agree when expressed like that. But there are a whole range of views on what the alternative to “eternity with God” actually means.
And if it turns out that God really is God but isn’t the sort of God you want to know wouldn’t “eternity with God” be eternal torment?
Comment by: JG
20Karen,
Thanks for your comments. My point is that I don’t believe things are as black and white as you appear to suggest.
For example, I recall you including a Vineyard church you belonged to as fundamentalist. Yet Jim Henderson comes from a Vineyard church and Rose Sweetman currently pastors a Vineyard church. Presumably you are not labelling them as fundamentalist?
This illustrates my point. Are you suggesting that all Christian fundamentalists agree on what the fundamentals are?
Many Christians agree that love and care for others are fundamentally important. Does that make all those who believe that fundamentalists? If so, I am very happy to be called a fundamentalist.
Comment by: benjamin ady
21JG,
I think the term “fundamentalist” as … generally understood is closer to what Karen is talking about than to what you are talking about. Wikipedia has a good article on it. It (the term) has a historical context and meaning, out of which the contemporary meaning grows, and yes, Christian fundamentalists tend to agree on what the fundamentals are, and they tend to have strong opinions, and be very modern in their thinking, and think that the Bible is the end-all of … how to think about life, the universe, and everything, and they think the Bible clearly says certain things, and clearly doesn’t say other certain things, and they think that … If you and I take “opposite” positions on an issue, then at least one of us has to be wrong. And by and large they think that a lot of people are going to burn in hell for all eternity. This is the group of people we are talking about when we say “Christian fundamentalists”. It’s useful to have a term to describe this group. I mean we can argue about whether to use this term for this group, or whether some particular church or group of churches are part of this group, but it’s still useful to have a term to talk about this group.
Then again, mabye all labels are inherently unuseful, and we should just take people as individuals, with individual stories which may have similarities. Maybe there is no meta narrative. Maybe the pomo’s are completely and totally right about the impossibility of being completely and totally right.
Comment by: Helen
22JG wrote:
First of all how could that happen that God isn’t the sort of God I’d wnat to know?
And secondly, no, being with someone I don’t love everything about isn’t anywhere near as bad as being tortured.
For me this is a no-brainer: would you rather have an annoying roommate (or boss), or be in constant physical pain?
Comment by: JG
23Benjamin,
Thanks – I agree the Wikipedia article is quite helpful. It says:
This is my point. The lines are blurred and are not distinct. It is not black and white.
I note fringe rather than mainstream.
This again indicates fringe groups to my mind though I accept that if you take into account all breaking aways during the past 500 years then ALL protestant churches could be described as fundamentalists.
Comment by: benjamin ady
24How did I used to get a brief, simple popular overview of things I wasnted to learn about before wikipedia? I honestly can’t remember, which is sad, since it wasn’t that long ago.
Have you seen Bill Watterson’s cartoon about black and white vs. color? Watterson is my favorite cartoonist ever by a mile, and it megasucks that he retired. Sorry I know this is *way* off subject. I also enormously like Leunig and Shaun Tan (although the latter isn’t actually a cartoonist–somehow he groups with the other two in my mind)
Actually, although in the sense you speak of, protestant churches *were* fundamentalist in their beginnings, they have now in a sense largely become very much like that which they were protesting.
Comment by: Eliza
25In case it’s helpful – here’s a discussion from CatE from 10/2006 on fundamentalism. The comments open with descriptions/definitions of Fundamentalism, from Karen.
Comment by: Karen
26JG, I can’t comment on specific churches like the Vineyard and what they currently believe. All I can tell you is that when I attended one for a few months during the 1980s, the doctrine of the specific church I attended fit into the “fundamentalist” definition that is considered standard. Wiki:
I have no idea whether the loose-knit group of Vineyard churches has a denominational structure or set of doctrinal orthodoxies it follows, nor whether they still adhere to the fundamentalist doctrines.
If the use of the term “fundamentalist” bothers you, can you suggest another term that we might better use? Bruce Bawer, in his “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity,” suggests that the demarcation line in the Protestant world falls between Biblical literalists and non-literalists. Would it be more useful to say “bibilical literalist” rather than using what might be a hot-button term such as “fundamentalist”?
Again, I want to be sensitive about not generalizing over the wide range of Christian belief as we’re discussing it here, but accurate in parsing out the details.
Comment by: benjamin ady
27“biblical literalist” seems to be to be not only denotationally more limited than “fundamentalist”, it also is conotationally enormously … weaker.
Comment by: benjamin ady
28have you guys seen this painting entitled American Fundamentalists? It’s provocative, methinks. If you click on the painting you can see a bigger version.
Comment by: Pete Strobel
29Helen:
You wrote:
I guess my response would be: I would encourage you to pray differently. Here’s an analogy. Say that you are learning to ride a bike. And you have a bad teacher who pushes you a certain way that you keep falling down and skinning your knees. Needless to say you’ll hate bicycling. Yet if you were to learn under different tutelage, and different approach, you might get the hang of it, and learn to ride it without falling, and then have a whole range of possibilities open to you such as bike rides with friends, rides in the countryside, etc… that you were unable to enjoy under the instruction of the bad teacher. I wonder if you were burned in your prayer time by having false expectations, poor teaching, lousy models of what prayer is.
At one time my prayer life/time tanked because I kept feeling guilty about not keeping up with prayer. I kept confessing my failures which then made me not look forward to confessing in the future which made me not pray and create new guilt. Well, this cycle was unhelpful. I had a poor prayer model. I finally said, in effect, forget the confession of being a poor pray-er and it was if I heard God sigh, “finally, now let’s get on with something more meaningful.” Now I will say, I didn’t hear God. I don’t get immediate and undeniable sensual stimuli like that from God… except for the wonders of creation, the hugs from my family and friends, etc…
When you say Prayer didn’t work for you, what “work” did you expect to take place?
Could it possibly be unfair for us to expect God to meet us only on our terms? I tried to express that I believe God is trying to meet us, communicate with us all the time through Nature, each other, through the revelations in the Bible, through Jesus. To me that is God speaking to us. Sure we’d like an oral, sit-down conversation without ambiguity. But that doesn’t seem realistic or reasonable. God did that once=in Jesus (or so Christians believe). But to keep sending some avatar or some such prophet…I think God wanted us to get beyond that and just learn to trust.
How was prayer not beneficial? Did you just not feel anything? Did you feel like you were just talking to a blank wall? Do you ever feel gratitude for beautiful sunsets, the rush of wind, the sound of water twingling on a pond, the call of a gull? If so do you express that gratitude? In my mind such an expression IS PRAYER. Now you may not want to give God credit for any of Nature, but I think God would be understanding, especially if you had been taught by bad teachers that made God out to be some monstrous cruel tyrant. However, I think that when we do express thankfulness for love, beauty, and health, we pray.
Does this make sense?
Comment by: Helen
30Pete, the problem which I came to have with prayer was that as I became more and more unsure I could have any certainty about God, it wasn’t like talking to a person I knew anymore. It was – I don’t know what it was – except, too confusing to continue doing. Not only that but it’s pointless if God doesn’t exist.
I can’t go back to prayer unless I get back to having much more assurance that a) someone is listening b) I can have confidence in what the nature of that person is.
About expressing gratitude: I enjoy beautiful sunsets and all those things. When I was more Christian I think I was in the habit of saying “thank you God” when I saw something like that.
When I became unsure of God’s existence I decided to just feel the happy feelings and not say “thank you God”. Just like I think God wouldn’t mind me not talking to him I think he’d be fine with me feeling happy and not having to actually say thank you God. Even with humans sometimes we don’t need to say thank you – it’s enough for them to know that we are enjoying something they had a hand in.
Comment by: Seren
31JG: “And if it turns out that God really is God but isn’t the sort of God you want to know wouldn’t “eternity with God” be eternal torment?”
I think this is a form of maltheism. I have only ever met one maltheist. it would be a very depressing world view if there wasn’t something delightfully amusing about it.
Comment by: JG
32Seren – I have not heard the term maltheism before but see various references to it on the internet. I’m not sure it is as rare as you suggest. Take the Roman Gods for example. I’m not sure that Romans regarded their Gods as particularly benevolent. And in other religions believers have to placate their Gods.
My point is that there are not two options but three. Putting it crudely 1) A good God 2) A bad God and 3) No God. Many arguments I’ve seen against God seem to me to be along the lines of “I can’t believe in a God that would beheave in this manner therefore I don’t believe in God. One matheist site I found talked of how both atheists and malathiests live without reference to God and this makes sense to me. In reality I believe there is considerable overlap between options 2 and 3.
IMO the Chiristian message both affirms the existence of God and that God IS a God we would want to know.
Comment by: JG
33Benjamin – I agree. I think this is true as a general principle. It is true both with positive and negative “protest” movements. Many good things have developed through people seeing something that is wrong and starting a group or movement that both speaks out against it and offers an alternative, different way. I think “Off the Map” could be viewed in that way.
Karen – use of the term fundamentalist doesn’t “bother” me, as said previously, I believe that the principle of love is of fundamental importance and if that makes me a fundamentalist then I am happy and proud to be one.
I’m simply challenging the idea that there is one unified doctrine and way of behaving that ALL fundamentalists adhere to. Merely changing the word to a different word makes no difference whatsoever.
I don’t think the concept of hell is “fundamentalist” unless we say that the Church has been fundamentalist throughout the past 2,000 years which seems to be different to the idea of fundamentalism having started in the early 20th century.
Why not say “traditional Christian idea” or “the biblical doctrine”?
This highlights that the problem you raise is a problem that affects Christianity generally not just “fundamentalists” regardless of how broadly that term is used.
The point you raise is a valid one though IMO it can be answered.
Comment by: Pete S.
34There are other ways of looking at hell besides this option: God sending estranged offspring to eternal (often translated or understood as “everlasting”) punishment.
First: The term eternal can refer to a qualitative state rather than quantitative state. Quantitatively, eternal means “everlasting”, in other words: lasting forever (temporally). However eternal can also mean a qualitative state that relates to the essence of God. Because it relates to God it is eternal. Out of time or regardless of time, it refers to a higher, purer, more holy state of being. Eternal punishment is therefore punishment or discipline that comes from, goes to, or is related to the Divine. Eternal punishment may therefore be understood as punishment or discipline that has essential consequences: even, ultimately restorative and redemptive.
I would encourage anyone to refer to the writings of George MacDonald in these regards. Maybe the next time someone angrily says “Go to Hell,” we might try responding soberly: “Okay, If it’s necessary for my redemption.”
Unending Pain? Perhaps, but that is only one possible understanding of the word. It is the most prevalent, but not necessarily the most faithful to the nature of Christ’s overall ministry.
Oh, yes, BICBW
Comment by: Helen
35Pete wrote:
But Pete, it was Jesus himself (according to the Bible) who talked about wailing and gnashing of teeth. And it was Jesus who told this story of unending pain (Luke 16):
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “
The tragic paradox in this story (imo) is that evidently the rich man in torment is ALREADY being less selfish than when he was alive, because he wants to warn his brothers to change their ways so they can avoid sharing his fate. That seems to be lost on Abraham, though, whose only response is “no” or “not possible”.
Since Abraham says “No” to everything and the man clearly is in pain (or at least extreme discomfort), I don’t see any hope here that the rich man is not in conscious pain and his circumstances will improve at some point. Do you? Am I missing something?
Comment by: Pete S.
36This is written in the form of a parable, and there are many ways to interpret parables. I don’t think Jesus is establishing a doctrine of Hell here. I think he is saying some very specific things about being rich (now) and neglecting the poor. I think he was also alluding to the fact that even when he arises from the dead people would not turn from their selfishness and greed.
One wonders about Hell, or Heaven for that matter. Some people choose to dismiss both. I think that one thing that begins here in this life (even if it ends here as well–though I believe it continues qualitatively in another way) is that we can make Hell (separation from God) or Heaven (fellowship with God).
Does God send us to Hell, or do we send ourselves there? Are we living in pain, alienation, heartbreak now because of our choices? Sometimes.
Comment by: Helen
37Pete S wrote:
See, here’s the issue – I’m interested in what you think. BUT if what a person thinks counts, I’d rather go with what I think than what you think (no offense).
And if what a person thinks doesn’t count then aren’t you afraid you and I are inadvertently sailing away to hell in a “what I think” handbasket?
Comment by: Pete S
38? ? ? ?
Helen:
My quote was:
I didn’t just write “I don’t think” At times I don’t think, but usually I’m asleep when that happens. ;-)
What a person thinks matters.
What a person does matters more.
Who a person is matters most.
Comment by: Helen
39Pete, I’m sorry – when I quoted “I don’t think” the point wasn’t to imply you’re thoughtless :-) but rather to highlight that we’re in the realm of personal opinion. In other words to me it was synonymous with “I think [something isn't the case]” not “I am awake but my brain isn’t” ;-)
But you have indicated that what I think doesn’t matter, because you have not taken me seriously when I’ve said “I think prayer doesn’t work for me and I think God is ok with that”.
Have you given any serious consideration to the possibility that what I said might be true? Or have you dismissed it out of hand because what you think matters, but what I think doesn’t matter?
Can you really be a better judge of what’s true for me than I am and if so, how did you get to be a better judge?
Comment by: Pete S
40Oh, I get it. I am a bit slow on the uptake.
(I may dislike the word “think” by the time I’m finished with this.)
First of all I am sorry, indeed apologize, for being unclear about your thoughts about prayer. I do believe you have thought about prayer. But I simply wondered if you had some poor prayer models or you had been raised in a type of church that taught you only certain types of prayer that ended up being dissatisfying.
I am not attempting to judge for you. I was merely suggesting that perhaps you haven’t had a full range of experience in the matter. I certainly have not. Fortunately in my narrow range of experience I happened upon prayer that does help. I hope to continue “experimenting” with prayer:: new ways of listening for God so that I may grow even more deeply.
Considering how much work, interest, thought, patience, ideas, and time you pour into this blogsite to keep people communicating, thinking and listening to each other, I do think your thinking matters….
Yes, I think that prayer must not have worked for you, or at least it doesn’t now.
Question: Did it ever? Did you once feel connected with God, or did you always sense little, except for unrealistic expectations from other Christians?
Comment by: Helen
41Pete, I’m sorry if I’m being a bit touchy about this.
As best I can remember, prayer worked fine when I was able to believe I was praying to someone and I had some idea what that someone was like.
When I say ‘fine’, I mean, I think it worked as well as it worked for the other Bible-believing Christians I knew. I doubt there’s any Christian who hasn’t had to deal with such things as:
1) accepting God’s choice not to answer certain prayers which mattered a lot to them
2) concentrating during prayer
3) taking time to pray when many other things are competing for their time
4) finding ways to keep prayer being a meaningful time
There are people who suffer physical injuries and then, for example, they can’t walk anymore.
Christians (except in ‘God will heal all physical illness’ groups) accept that and don’t say “No, you need to walk God wants you to walk. I can’t serve him without walking. Are you sure you’ve tried everything?”
Maybe I have something like that but it’s invisible. Something that means I can’t pray.
Or maybe it’s simply that it makes no sense to pray to someone who isn’t there. And I’m not sure enough someone is there to start praying again.
I don’t really know but I also don’t see why it matters – I don’t miss praying and like I already said, if God does exist it doesn’t make sense to me that he wouldn’t be fine with me not praying since it doesn’t work for me anymore.
Really, there’s no reason at all for me to start praying again.
For the most part, people don’t tell them, have you tried this? Or, God really wants you to walk again. Or
Here’s something I’m curious about. Suppose I had a permanent physical injury and I couldn’t walk. How would you talk to me about that? Would you take this same approach – asking me if I’d tried everything, telling me God wants me to walk, telling me how much you benefit from your own walking, etc etc?
See…what if I have a different sort of thing which is like that but except you can’t see it?
I’m just asking (and trying not to be too touchy about it ;-))
Comment by: Pete S
42Hmmm. If I couldn’t walk anymore I wouldn’t want people pressuring me to try to walk, if I knew I couldn’t. But I would certainly still desire to walk. And if there was someway to go to therapy, maybe acquire prosthetics and/or possibly walk again, I would then try.
Let’s say I was blinded, and I knew there was no such therapy, no prosthetics, nothing that could restore my sight. I would greatly resent people saying: Try to see, strain your eyes, pray hard, you can do, God wants to heal you if you just believe hard enough…. However, I know that I would still desire with all my heart the ability to see, even if I knew it were impossible.
That I think is different. One may know it (prayer) is not reachable or useable, or realistic anymore, but is there the desire? If there isn’t, then it can’t be equated to losing one’s limbs, one’s eyes, or another other physical part.
I don’t think you’re being too touchy. I’m sorry if I put you on the defensive.
Comment by: Helen
43Pete wrote:
Pete, may I unpack this a little?
I don’t think this is exactly true, because surely it would mean you are failing to be ‘content in all circumstances’?
Don’t you think you’d go through a process of grieving the loss, once you knew it was impossible to do anything to change it? And that process would lead you to a point of accepting it? As what God has allowed in your life?
Yes, you would always say “I’d prefer to be able to walk.” But I don’t think you could survive emotionally if you were actively continually thinking “If only I could walk…”
Anyway, though, I do think you made an excellent point in pointing out that a person who was unable to walk would never say they prefer not being able to walk. So it was not such a great analogy since I don’t have any desire to pray.
Now – I feel very awkward writing this or saying this to Christians because I feel like it sounds so sinful. Because how could I not want to talk to God?
I think the reasons why are all-important and I hope Christians will listen enough to go beyond “I have no desire to pray”, to understand that prayer was not the beneficial experience for me that it is for them. I hope they will listen enough to believe that’s possible and I didn’t just ‘do it wrong’ somehow and hence miss out on the benefits.
I know I have ‘issues’ so I’m not willing to say it’s your fault this topic is hard for me to discuss. Anyway thanks for caring.
Comment by: Stephan
44Let me just throw in some loose change from experience. Nine years ago I lost three fingers on my left hand in an accident. I am a guitar player, so this was a devastating loss. I have relearned to play guitar, and my life has gone on, but there is not a day that goes by that I don’t wish I had those fingers back. I have accepted that it probably won’t happen, and I have moved on to other things in my life, but if I could have them back there is no way I would say no.
This conversation reminds me a little of a quote by St. Teresa of Avila:
It sounds to me, Helen, that you lost the desire to want to want to love God.
Comment by: Helen
45Stephan wrote:
Stephan, I’m very sorry for your loss and I respect what you are saying. I guess my point is, I don’t think it’s possible to live focused on what we cannot have and not be miserable. There has to be some sort of acceptance of the fact it (or he or she) is gone. But of course, I can understand that you would never not want those fingers back were that possible.
I think it’s more that I decided to redirect all my wanting to love people towards loving human beings which I know are real.
It seems like a win-win situation to me since if what Christians believe is true, Jesus did say loving people is like loving God. So I think loving people counts and God will understand if he’s real.