Sizing up the fence
April 11, 2008 by Quester
Longing for a Holiday has a link on her blog to a *.pdf file of an article by Tim Keller titled, “How Can I know God?” It ends by suggesting, “Make a list of the issues that you perceive to be barriers to your crossing the line into faith” and provides some sample headings.
Sounds like a worthwhile exercise for me. Here’s my list, off the top of my head:
Content issues.
1. Who is God?
2. Where is God?
3. Does God care about individual humans, humanity as a whole, or neither?
4. Why has God created us/me?
5. What does God want of us/me?
6. Why is there death?
7. What exactly did Jesus accomplish/what is the gospel message?
8a. What do we need to do to be saved?
8b. If you don’t do it, what happens?
9. What/who do we need to be saved from?
10. Why do we need to be saved?
11. How does God intend for us to use the Bible?
12. Why is faith considered a virtue?
13. How do we know (any of the above)?
Coherence issues.
1. Why do so many Christians disagree with each other on the answers to the above questions?
2. Why would God communicate in a manner open to so many contradictory interpretations?
3. If God is all-powerful and loves us, why are there hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and disease?
4. When will God fulfil His promise of Isaiah 65:20?
5. Why does Matthew’s gospel consider Isaiah 7 a prophecy of Christ?
6. Why does Adam’s choice affect us more effectively than Christ’s?
7a. If salvation is not universal, why isn’t it?
7b. If salvation is universal, in what way does it concern us?
8. Christ instructed his followers to heal people. Why can’t we?
9. What happened to Jesus in his hometown (Mark 6: 1-6)? Does God need our faith to be able to act?
Cost issues.
1. How long must I seek and not find?
Quester,
I would very much like to respond to these questions. I would like to give you answers from a logical standpoint rather than purely Scriptural. Although there will be obviously Biblical views expressed the point will be to show logical coherence rather than Scriptural support.
Of course, some of your questions are of specific texts, in which case I would respond from Scriptural analysis, but the rest would be simply logic. We would only start with one assumption (that your questions also start with): there is a God.
I would like to do this…but I have already told you, and I know you understand, judging by your response (thanks for “censoring”), that this is tax time. So…If you would agree to allow me to do so I will begin next week (time permitting), unless I get time to start today. This would also interrupt our other discussion on de-conversion (for time reasons), but I believe it is worth-while since these are the core issues for you right now.
Would you prefer that I post comments here, or email, or some other option? I have enjoyed our discussions, and I appreciate your questions and your search. Believe it or not, many, many, many Christians ask the same or similar questions, including many, many, many ministers. You are not alone.
Clint
Respond as you see fit, when you can. I don’t expect anyone to have all the answers for me. I just found it to be a useful exercise to list my questions.
If you are going to start with the assumption that there is a God, it might be helpful if you also start with the assumption, “all we can know about God comes from God’s interactions with the world we can see.”
If all we can know about God is His interactions with the world we can see, then isn’t nature enough to show us something beyond “chance” brought us here, to an amazing planet perfectly suited for us?
I look at all of creation and can’t help but wonder how it could be at all possible without God.
If all we can know about God is His interactions with the world we can see, then isn’t nature enough to show us something beyond “chance” brought us here, to an amazing planet perfectly suited for us?
I’m not sure about “perfectly”, but if this planet wasn’t suited for us, we wouldn’t be here.
I look at all of creation and can’t help but wonder how it could be at all possible without God.
When I look at all the suffering in creation, I wonder how we can imagine God is good.
Where is free will in your understanding? Are we at all responsible for our own choices?
That sounds confrontive…I didn’t mean for it to be. Just questions I’ve had too.
When my nephew was born at less than 1 pound and lived, it was obvious he wouldn’t make it in life, if he made it at all, without multiple disabilities. It was touch and go for the first five years…My sister and I had many conversations about why. At the same time I was struck down with a chronic illness. I asked why wondering if I had done anything to bring it upon myself. I had prayed and didn’t feel there was any unconfessed sin…I was at a low point in trying to understand it all.
My sister finally told me she had come to understand it is a sin-sick world, we are in a fallen state, we groan in these earthly tents…and the earth groans too.
Restoration will come, I believe, when it is the right time, and only an all-knowing, God of Love determines when the time is right. Platitudes? I don’t think so…
I don’t know whether there is or is not such thing as free will, but I do believe choices have consequences. The stress I am undergoing looking for a job and a new home are the direct result of my choices. I do not blame God for this suffering.
Your illness, your nephew’s disabilities, the earth’s groans: these tell me that God is either evil, impotent, absent, indifferent, or non-existent. I can’t see how they could reasonably be considered consequences of our choices.
In my own mind I might come to the same conclusions. I’m finite, limited to my own perspective as a created being…I need to move beyond myself for any understanding. I believe all the answers are found in the Book.
I won’t bother to give you verses for unless we have the same understanding of the Book’s value, it’s fruitless. It’s the only wisdom I have (foolishness to the world) for I am a fool for Christ…I continue to pray as the Lord brings you to mind.
Q: Glad my www link could be of help to you!
Michelle, I’m not sure how it gives you comfort to know that the wisdom you have is only wisdom to people who already agree with you. It doesn’t leave us with much to say to each other.
LfH, Keller seems to ask interesting questions. I’ll have to get his book from a library some day and see how he does on providing answers.
Quester,
I think I can go with your assumption: “all we can know about God comes from the world we can see.” I would modify it slightly (just for the sake of semantics and logical consistency)…”There is a God, and all we can know about God comes from the world we can sense and experience.” Obviously there are empiracly valid evidences that come from more than just our sight. Even emotions and feelings, in certain circumstances, can be empirical evidence (like if you are testing the effects of a mood-altering drug). But, I don’t think emotions and feelings are a safe place to stand in the question of God. I might feel that I am right, but so do Muslims and Hindus and atheists. I might experience God through some sensation or emotion, but people of all different religions claim the same experiences, so I have no way of knowing if my experiences are true, and no basis of claiming that mine are more true than that of others. As a result, I think an emotional faith ought to be the result, not the cause, of belief in God. There must be other factors that ground our belief. Likewise, a lack of an emotional experience of God should not be the cause of unbelief. You may feel God is not there, or have no feelings that He is there, but many people feel just the opposite. How do we know which feelings are true? Emotions are simply not a good test for God’s existence. They are important, but they should not be the ground of our faith.
So, let’s start with your first question: Who is God?
By definition, any god must transcend all aspects of this world in order to be considered a god. Also, a god of any kind must be a being with a mind. This is because a being that has no mind acts deterministically. If He has no mind, He does not decide what He does, which means His actions are determined by something else…which means they are controlled by something else. That something else would then be greater than the being in question, having the ability to control or determine the actions of the being in question, and a more likely candidate for God than the being in question.
This reasoning also leads us to the conclusion that God must transcend certain aspects of this world. If He did not, then he would be controlled by some of the deterministic causes in the world (such as genetics that determined to some extent who you are and what you do). And, again, if He can be controlled by aspects of the world, then the world becomes a better candidate for deity than our God in question, having the power to control God. Then again, we probably only considered God to be God in the first place because of His ability to control the world, which removes the world from candidacy, leaving us seeking another candidate for potential Supreme Being.
Whoever God is, then, He must be self-controlled, self-caused, and self-reasoning. If this is true, then He must be, essentially, uncaused. He must simply exist, and not as the result of any other cause. If He was caused, then that cause would be a greater candidate for deity because of its deterministic (creative?) power, and any cause of that cause would be a greater candidate, and so on…until we reach an uncaused cause.
So, again, just to clarify, God, by definition, must transcend all aspects of this world (except for an exception I will discuss briefly), must have a mind, and must be uncaused (or self-caused, if the law of cause and effect has got you rebelling against the idea of uncaused). One exception to the first identifier, “must transcend all aspects of this world,” would be any instance when God allows Himself to be controlled or limited by the world. For example, let’s say that God wants to perform a miracle to convince a particular group of free-willed, logical beings that He exists. And, let’s say that He decides He wants to multiply 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish into enough food to feed 5,000 of these beings. In order to perform the miracle, God must limit Himself in time: He must initiate the miracle at the time when the particular beings are gathered in one place, and are hungry. In a sense, God’s power is limited or controlled by time. But, this is not a problem if God is uncaused since, being uncaused, He would have to be the origin of all caused phenomena, including time. If He is the cause of time, then He has already demonstrated His power over time by causing it in the first place, and if He has a mind (as we have already discussed), then He decided to cause (or create) time. If He created time, then He obviously must be outside of the control of time, and any circumstance in which He appears to be limited or controlled by time must really only be (by logical necessity) an instance when He allowed Himself to be limited by time. This would be similar to an artist who decides to create an oil painting, and limits himself to this medium whenever producing the oil painting, although he has the ability and option of using many other mediums. To call it an oil painting, the artist must produce the painting with oil paint…he is limited. Yet, he limited himself in the production by deciding to produce a painting using only oil paint. This in no way reduces the abilities of the artist. He only limited himself for this production. Logically, God can be limited and still be God if He is really limiting Himself. And, again, this must be the case if He is God, since God, by definition, must be uncaused.
I won’t take the time to describe in detail how this reasoning seems to necessitate God’s existence since we agreed to start with the assumption that God does exist, but I will touch on it briefly. If we follow the materialistic assumption that every effect has a cause, then there must be a cause for everything we experience. If everything is caused, then there must be an infinite series of causes since every cause we could think of would be caused. If we conclude that everything caused is the result of an infinite series of causes, then we have all sorts of problems with entropy…a series of causes would produce more entropy with every interaction, and an infinte series of causes would produce an infinite amount of entropy…which would mean complete and utter chaos with zero chance of life. There must, then, be a beginning to the series, but a beginning necessitates an uncaused cause…and that is exactly what our separate line of reasoning already told us God must be.
So, Who is God? He must be the Uncaused Cause. In other words, He must be the Creator and Originator of everything we know, and of everything we don’t know. If He is the Creator, then there are implications for us, that I will discuss later, since He created you and me.
“Michelle, I’m not sure how it gives you comfort to know that the wisdom you have is only wisdom to people who already agree with you. It doesn’t leave us with much to say to each other.”
It doesn’t give me comfort…it causes me to be at a loss for words to share…which makes me quite sad. The words that bring comfort to me, won’t do the same for you…the words that might possibly be comforting to you, might not do a thing for me. To say, “Be at peace…take care…reach for the stars…meditate…this too shall peace…” These are such trite remarks to me.
I find comfort in the promises from scripture - I’m afraid those promises would be merely platitudes for you. I don’t want our conversation to end, but I’m not wise enough to know how to speak differently. I am sorry.
Cthoward,
So, we know that God has a mind and is uncaused, because you have decided to define “God” as a thinking, self-caused being?
That’s… unhelpfully circular.
Edit: Though perhaps I should wait until you get to 13 to tell me how you can know this.
Edit #2: Perhaps a link to arguments that are unconvincing might save some time. While none of the arguments are dealt with exhaustively, including #29, the Uncaused Cause, some of the main holes in each argument are listed.
Michelle,
I’d love to respond, but as we’ve both said now, we’ve reached a point where neither of us really have words the other can hear.
Q:
You can check out Tim here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ Faster than the library. The video is from when he recently spoke at Google on his book tour. He said something on this video (I haven’t yet listened to it all) that I hadn’t heard him say before and it was just so simple, but so true. He said that if you think that religion causes horrible things and wars and conflicts, look at atheism. He pointed out that there’s something horrific in the depth of men that can turn a good thing into something awful (like turning a religion into a reason to kill). But that this tendency to spiral into evil doesn’t affect religions only, just look at Stalin, Hitler, Cambodia’s killing fields, China, etc. The point is, you can’t use the notion that evil is “caused” by religion as an effective argument to rule out the existence of God or a particular religion in general, because religion and atheism are tied on that count. (Please know I am sharing this in no way to try to convince you of anything, I just thought it was a great argument!)
BTW, I gotta tell you, those folks over at DeCon can be hard!! I was undisciplined in my choice of words twice, and, wham, bam. (I said Tim used a presuppositional apologetic in his book, which he does in the sense of showing the presuppositions that underlie many anti-God or anti-Christian points of view — and Leo gave me a cyberlecture on the circular nature of presuppostional apologetics). Phew. I had to take a breather. On the other hand, I kind of think if I could sit down with that Leo and talk about philosophy, I’d learn alot. He’s some smart dude (as are other folks in the DeCon comments).
By the way, have you observed that most of the blogging population is fairly bright and interesting? It’s a fun place to meet folks…
BTW, I gotta tell you, those folks over at DeCon can be hard!!
Can be. In your case, though, it looks to me like they’re being hard on your ideas, not you. Of course, I’m not you, so I don’t know how you are experiencing the exchange.
By the way, have you observed that most of the blogging population is fairly bright and interesting? It’s a fun place to meet folks…
Depends on the blog, and the bloggers, but it certainly can be true.
You can check out Tim here.
Well, that saves me from tracking down and reading his book. Thank-you. I can’t say I’m impressed, though. His reasons to believe in God seem to be:
1) You choose to interpret things that happen in your life in a way that means that God exists.
Q: As Keller admits, these things can also be interpreted to mean that God doesn’t exist.
2) People you like or respect believe in God.
Q: Well, that’s a reason to join a religion, but it is not evidence God exists.
3) There are no iron-clad arguments to prove God doesn’t exist.
Q: So what? There are also no iron-clad arguments to prove magical, invisible, intangible unicorns are not dancing in your milk. This is not a reason to believe in those unicorns, or in God.
4) If the universe was even slightly different, there would not be life on this planet.
Q: Cute poker game story notwithstanding, Keller admits that Dawkins has successfully argued that the fine-tuned universe argument has no weight to it. He doesn’t even need parallel dimensions, just the amount of space and time we are actually dealing with.
5) Human rights do not derive from nature, nor by the decisions of the majority of people.
Q: It’s hard to point out all that is wrong with this argument without typing for days. Let me say, in short, that human rights can indeed be a survival strategy we have evolved to adopt in order to further ourselves as a species. It works to do so, doesn’t it?
6) When you have chosen to commit to God, you will find more reasons.
Q: Well, that was simply not true in my case.
It looks like I disagree with all that Keller has set out as “reasons” to believe. I find it hard to think whatever he didn’t mention, but wrote in his book, are more convincing.
But since he spent so much time with the idea that not believing in God requires a greater leap of faith than believing in God, let’s look at the reasons he sets up against God’s existence and how he responds.
A) There is needless suffering in the world.
Keller argues that if God is big enough to blame for suffering, he is big enough to have reasons we can’t guess.
I agree, but see no reason to trust that God has these unguessable reasons, and thus no reason to trust God is good.
B) Religious people do horrible things.
Keller argues that there is something in the human heart that can turn holders of any worldview to violence.
That’s a nice argument, but ignores that if the God Keller worships exists, then that God created the human heart in that way. Thus, Keller provides another reason to distrust God’s goodness or power.
C) No one can know the absolute truth about God.
Keller argues that to say that no one can know the absolute truth about anything is a self-contradictory statement.
Fair enough. I’ve never heard an agnostic use the elephant argument. That’s usually left to religious pluralists. Either way, I agree with Keller here. If there is an elephant in the room, we should be able to discern it by sharing and considering our perceptions of it.
Too bad we can’t even find the snake, tree or rope.
D) You can not prove God exists, therefore I have no need to act as if God does.
Keller describes this as a leap of faith that assumes God is within universe to an extent that God’s existence can be proven from within the universe.
I argue that we do not need proof, but evidence. If there is no evidence of God at work in the universe, there may still be a God, but why should we care?
I didn’t listen to the Q&A at the end. I’m afraid that after 45 minutes, I was tired of listening to this guy. His stance seems to be based on his idea that it takes more faith to believe God doesn’t exist than to believe God does. I see no reason to suppose this is even slightly true. After all, we don’t need any evidence to not believe in something, just absence of evidence that it is there. And even after listening to Keller, I see no evidence for God, at all.
On the positive side, I’m glad he mentioned Dorothy L. Sayers and her detective novels. I’ve only read Gaudy Night, but I enjoyed it. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t mention her plays and theology books. Sayers was an Anglican theologian who wrote a lot of great books, I took a course on her works when I was in seminary. She is a fascinating author.
Well, I’m impressed you hung out there for even 10 minutes. I didn’t! Probably the thing I liked most about the book were the examples of the positive affect of Christianity (like William Wilberforce’s anti slavery movement). Those moved me.
You know that the average Joe out there, and strangely, the above average Joe (who you’d think would think better…), has really very flimsy arguments against the existence of God and against Christianity. If you take your average seeker, or even interested non seeker, and you use Tim’s arguments, then you can usually show the person how weak their position is (since they really haven’t thought it out). You’ve now removed their “buying” objections (as we say in sales). They can no longer use these flimsy arguments as a reason not to move forward. So, then, the newly more open person thinks, well, there’s a chance that God exists and that Christianity is true, so I’ll give it a try. Then you get them into the Bible and let God do the rest. You know the idea: if you get a seeker into the book of John, then the Bible (via the Holy Spirit) finishes the job. Tim is under no illusion that his arguments will talk someone into the faith, but that they may remove barriers that keep people from further exploration. But, in the end, he is trusting that the person will encounter God.
And that’s the crux of the issue. All the apologetics in the world can’t get someone into (or out of) the kingdom. Further, no matter which direction you go (atheism, agnosticism, any other relgion), you run into unsolvable issues. Can you really prove what’s true?? So, with Christianity, it comes down to an experience, that some of us (and I still do) interpret as an encounter with God. From what you have said, that experience for you has fled… or, you’ve been led to re-interpret it.
I don’t get why that happens. There’s so much evidence for me in my life that this stuff is true, that the apologetics part is simply a way for me to feel confident of the faith (particularly early on as a Christian), help others remove their barriers, & explain some things I still wrestle with. And even if it isn’t true (if Jesus was wildly misquoted or crazy… That Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument is pretty hard for me to ignore) — then since my whole life is wrapped around it, I’m not sure I could be convinced. I can certainly see why this path is so difficult for many. Not sure I would even try to walk it…
LfH, I think that’s the point I’m reaching. There is no actual evidence for God’s existence, except for personal feelings and experiences we interpret as God’s actions in our lives. If we don’t have those experiences, or see another way of interpreting them, any ground for belief fades away surprisingly quickly. This admission shocks me, and I want to deny it. I just don’t see how I can.
Well, as for me (now I admit, my experiences definitely bolster this), I still think there is more evidence for, then against. I
Really? What, other than your experiences, do you consider evidence?
Quester,
I hope you take a close look at what I wrote again. And keep in mind the following: yes, defining God as having a mind and being an uncaused cause would be circular if I were trying to prove God’s existence, but we have already agreed to assume God exists. So, assuming God exists, He must be uncaused because if He wasn’t, then whatever caused Him would be a better candidate for deity. And, He must have a mind because if He didn’t then all of His actions would be determined by something or someone else (like a rock that sits were its sits because of a landslide, not because it decided to sit there), and if His actions were determined by something else, then that would be a better candidate for deity.
As far as an apologetic for God’s existence goes…there are no neat and tidy solutions on either side of the “causal” argument. Either you have a beginning, which is an exception to the cause and effect rule (sort of), or you have matter existing for eternity, which means we have to find exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Hawkins tries to argue around this second problem by saying that it is possible that before the Big Bang, when everything in our universe was condensed into a marble-sized rock (or whatever it was), the current laws of physics did not apply…but he has no evidence that this was true, or that it coulld even be the case. It is pure speculation, the kind of “blind faith” that most atheists hate theism for (of course I don’t believe faith is or is supposed to be blind at all…but that’s another discussion). There are other reasons for believing in God’s existence, but, again, I am starting from the assumption that there is a God to more quickly answer your questions. Your resources might say something about arguing for His existence from my points, but they say nothing, I am sure, about who He must be if He does in fact exist, based on my points.
Cthoward,
We also agreed that, ”There is a God, and all we can know about God comes from the world we can sense and experience.” You have not referenced anything we can sense or experience, but rely on a definition you would like to apply to God.
Allow me to offer three alternatives to the uncaused, thinking God definition, off the top of my head:
1. God is an alien.
Long before humans evolved on this planet, sentient life evolved on another. Some members of that alien, sentient species travel here occasionally and perform deeds we attribute to God. This “God” has a mind, but was not uncaused. That which caused it, a process of evolution over multiple millennia may also be termed God, but it does not think.
2. God is the communal effect of billions of unthinking ghosts.
Each time a human dies, a ghost is formed. The ghost can not think, but can affect the world we can sense and experience in ways we can not understand. We attribute that effect to God. The ghosts have no mind. They were caused by the deaths of humans. The deaths that cause the ghosts may be called God, but the deaths also were caused, and have no minds.
3. God is the common dream of one hundred cats.
Whenever one hundred cats dream the same thing, at the same time, it happens. This is caused, but not consciously chosen to happen. We call what happens “acts of God”.
Et cetera, et cetera. God is not necessarily, by definition, uncaused and thinking. Unless you can tell me how your definition “comes from the world we can sense and experience” please just admit we can’t actually know it about God and move on.
Either you have a beginning, which is an exception to the cause and effect rule (sort of), or you have matter existing for eternity, which means we have to find exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Or the universe creates itself, or two universes constantly create each other, or time is not actually linear but a huge cycle that restarts every time the same point is passed, or before time existed, there was no time for causes to effect anything, and thus cause and effect were not an issue, or, or, or… you get the idea, I’m sure.
It is pure speculation, the kind of “blind faith” that most atheists hate theism for (of course I don’t believe faith is or is supposed to be blind at all…but that’s another discussion).
Ignoring (for the moment) the accusation that atheists hate theism, the difference between speculation and faith (blind or not) is that no one is claiming the speculation is necessarily true. It is simply one of many possible options that can be thought about until enough evidence is gathered to find out what the actual answer is.
Reading your questions and the DeCon site has led me to ask the same question of myself. Of all the evidence I’ve heard over the years, what convinces me the most is the evidence that Jesus Christ is the God made man. Over the last few days, as I’ve commented on your and DeCon’s blog, I’ve really thought: What rational reason do I have for believing this, other than my “sense” (which of course I believe is the assurance of the Holy Spirit)? When I think about Jesus, my eyes fill with tears (my kids tease me about this). I believe he still lives and that I have a relationship with him. My proof? As CS Lewis wrote: he’s either liar, lunatic, or Lord. And his affect on history would suggest that he is Lord.
Another alternative however is that the New Testament quotes by which Jesus claims to be God are complete fabrications. The evidence that they are not fables or lies is two-fold. One is the documentary evidence (I was exposed to that long ago, so don’t have the details now). The other is the similar to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead: such “lies” couldn’t have made it into the gospels in the culture of the time. There are lots of reasons for this, but I like the notion that the Romans and leading Jews had a vested interest in debunking these lies… and apparently never did. Keller has an excellent chapter on this proof in his book, much of which he gleaned from NT Wright’s tome on the subject. One other logical proof for me isn’t really a proof: from what I know of all the world’s religions, in this one, God does the work on our behalf: He came down because we couldn’t reach up.
Hmm… I haven’t heard of any convincing evidence that the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament were not fictional, or at least greatly exaggerated. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any, but I’m glad you’re aware of this fourth option to Lewis’ famous “trilemma”.
N.T. Wright’s works have been recommended to me from many people in the past three months. I’ve already decided I should read at least one of his books. As things stand, now, though, I see no reason to assume Jesus is either “God-made man” or Lord.
Out of curiosity, you mention that “the Romans and leading Jews had a vested interest in debunking these lies”. What interest was that? Why should they have cared?
If the Jewish leaders would kill Jesus and his followers because they perceived the threat, why wouldn’t they want to refute the resurrection account which probably fueled the growth of this threatening sect? Why did the Romans persecute Christians as well if they didn’t consider the faith to be a threat?
I am curious. Did you ever at one time “feel” that you and Jesus were friends, that he loved you? What exactly was the nature of the “feeling” or “sense” you once had? I imagine it’s hard to put into words. Whatever it is I feel, it leads me to tears, just thinking about the cross. My husband says he hasn’t “felt” like a Christian (or sensed God’s presence) for years, but still adheres to the faith (he quotes: “where shall I go? for you have the words of eternal life…”). I pointed out to him, however, that he still gets convicted of sin! He’ll stop by here one day. I give him a wrap up of my online activities every day, which leads to good dicussions. This has been a great outlet for a working mom who doesn’t have much time for friendships these days.
If the Jewish leaders would kill Jesus and his followers because they perceived the threat
What if they didn’t kill Jesus, or Jesus followers? What makes you think they did?
Why did the Romans persecute Christians as well if they didn’t consider the faith to be a threat?
Most of my books are packed up just now, but did the Romans persecute the Christians especially, or did they persecute all Jews who refused to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor, and simply considered Christianity to be another sect of Judaism (which it was for a long time)?
Did you ever at one time “feel” that you and Jesus were friends, that he loved you?
Yes. For twenty years or so. Jesus was my closest confidant, best friend, teacher, guide, comforter, source of my strength and giver of my joy. He answered every question, stayed with me through every trial, performed wonders and burned through my self-centeredness to tell me how he wanted me to serve him. I danced with Jesus, following His lead. I fell at Jesus’ feet, or was laid there when I foolishly thought I could stand on my own. I chuckled as Jesus humbled me, again and again, and appreciated His patience with my endless arrogance. He calmed my heart, stilled my soul, and held me close when I hurt most. He poured out his Spirit for me, and I drank thirstily, in desperate knowledge of my own brokenness. He taught me to take myself lightly and see the humour in life.
At least, that is what I believed for almost all of my life.
I can’t comment on your comments. I don’t have the energy or the knowledge to answer the questions. I imagine there are scholars who can stand on both sides of these issues with equally good proof. I choose to believe the ones who agree with me admittedly feeling oriented faith. Unless we were there when it all happened, we can never have 100% proof.
Wow. Reading the last part of the post brought tears to my eyes. I went back to find your post of what happened to that relationship, but it seemed the details were sketchy. It’s like you lost your best friend. Do you hope to find him again? Do you ever feel angry about it? Like you were abandoned? (now, maybe you see it as something that wasn’t real, but did you feel that way in the past?)
I thought of another “evidence” of the faith for me, but again, this could be handed over to coincidence. That is, I’ve seen answered prayers and changed lives that seemed to defy probability, that seemed supernatural. For example, I became a Christian when I was quite young (we are talking 3rd grade) through the outreach of a girlfriend. One parent was a nominal Christian; the other, an agnostic. My sister is now a Buddhist. From the time I came to faith, I never considered walking away. My family mocked me for my faith. They figured I’d grow out of it, but I never did. My dad, a University professor, often said “I can’t believe such an intelligent person like you can believe this stuff.” (he held the same flimsy arguments against the faith that most do). And I’d say, “I can’t believe an intelligent person like you doesn’t…!” But frankly, I always felt that it was a miracle that at that young age I made a decision to go against my family’s beliefs and never turned back. Probably that’s one reason I believe in election. I can’t take credit for what seems a miracle. It’s like God burst in on the scene of my life and never left. He took me by surprise.
I’ve also had the experience of a strong impression to pray specifically, only to see the prayer answered just as I prayed. It’s only happened a few times that clearly, but, boy, it bolstered my faith. And I’ve seen people’s lives turned around. I’ve seen “conversions” first hand. I don’t think psychology can explain what I’ve seen. But, of course, you might see it all differently.
I imagine there are scholars who can stand on both sides of these issues with equally good proof.
Really? Well, I can’t prove such proof doesn’t exist, but I wonder what it might be.
It’s like you lost your best friend. Do you hope to find him again? Do you ever feel angry about it? Like you were abandoned?
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Do realize that it was only this February that I realized that I no longer believe God exists. Barely two months ago. I’ve been going through the whole emotional spectrum in that time.
Realize, it’s not that I believe God doesn’t exist. I just no longer believe He does. If I find any evidence that I can hold onto that hints God is there, I would gladly believe again.
I said that on the de-con site several times, and visiting Christians have gotten mad at me as they presented what they thought was evidence, and I explained to them that it wasn’t what they thought it was. But just because my desire for evidence is so desperate, that doesn’t mean I’ll pretend that something is evidence, when it isn’t.
Many of my stories of prayers answered and miracles witnessed are already written on this blog, if you’re interested. It’s not a lack of experience, but a new interpretation for my experiences, that I am dealing with.
Do you mind if I pray for you that God would show up again?
Am I crazy to think that there are scholars at every seminary who can present skads of what they consider proof? What about Ravi Zacharias? It may not be airtight proof (heck, I don’t even know if I’m real, if we want to get into airtight arguments…), and I imagine you can find skads who have contrary evidence. You know what I mean. You might not call it proof, but in their minds (both sides), they are proving their positions.
Well, gotta go.
Do you mind if I pray for you that God would show up again?
Not at all. Many people are praying for me right now. Even I still say the occasional prayer, if more anguished and less formal than times past.
Am I crazy to think that there are scholars at every seminary who can present skads of what they consider proof?
You’re not crazy, but you may be wrong. My Old Testament professor talked about how the Bible was put together, but did not seem to believe that anything recorded in the Bible actually happened as the Bible portrayed. She was just interested in ancient myths and legends, and what they said about the people who wrote them. This upset me when I was a student there.
My New Testament professor talked about how we do not know who wrote the various scriptures in the New Testament, though there are some guesses. Mostly, though, he talked about what the scriptures meant to those who wrote them. Whether the incidents really happened never came up.
What about Ravi Zacharias?
What about him?
It may not be airtight proof (heck, I don’t even know if I’m real, if we want to get into airtight arguments…)
Fair enough. Evidence will do, for a start.
and I imagine you can find skads who have contrary evidence.
Actually, I don’t think there are skads of evidence on both sides. I’d be surprised if there is even minimal evidence, if any, on any or either “side”.
You might not call it proof, but in their minds (both sides), they are proving their positions.
True, but how often are their positions, “God exists.” Seminary professor positions, in my experience, tend to be more along the lines of, “There are at least five distinguishable literary styles in the Greek Septuagint.”
My husband went to a multiyear course in apologetics held by Ravi. I’ve heard him speak. He specializes in proof: http://www.rzim.org/
I can’t imagine Westminster, Trinity and Gordon-Conwell (three conservative, but intellectual seminaries) don’t have courses in apologetics and profs who focus on that stuff. Or did you attend one of these? How strange, if not.
I will pray.
I did last night and when I did, I had this sense that Jesus must have felt that sense of abandonment at the cross. How horrible for the Trinity to have loved and rejoiced in one another for an eternity, to be torn apart for our sake, to experience the total absence of one another’s presence (at least the Father from the Son) for those moments on the cross.
I meant, How strange if they don’t have such courses.
Or did you attend one of these? How strange, if not.
I didn’t. There are others on the de-con site who did take such courses, and found the evidence lacking. I could find out who, specifically, if you’d like, and whether they’d be willing to talk to you about it.
How horrible for the Trinity to have loved and rejoiced in one another for an eternity, to be torn apart for our sake, to experience the total absence of one another’s presence (at least the Father from the Son) for those moments on the cross.
It is indeed a horrible story of a senseless tragedy.
What story is horrible and senseless? If there is no God, then the story I described doesn’t exist: no Trinity to tear apart. If Jesus’ death as a man is horrible and senseless, well, welcome to the Roman empire… preceded and followed by many such horrible and senseless deaths. And if Christianity is true, that while the death was horrible, it wasn’t senseless. One day Jesus will bring many brothers home to His father to rejoice with the Trinity forever.
I can tell that the many of the DeCon folks have been steeped in conservative apologetics and have found the arguments wanting (Leo, for example). Still, the evidence at hand is good enough for me… I still have that Holy Spirit conviction/assurance going on. (FYI, we are praying for you in that regard).
If you are interested, another resource that helped me years ago was Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, still in print. See http://www.beyondbelief.com/r_apologetics.spl?sourceid=3104
More than a Carpenter is the Trilemma expanded, but Evidence is more documentary/historical evidence.
and
And if Christianity is true, that while the death was horrible, it wasn’t senseless.
Please explain the sense in it for me, then. The more I look at it, and the multiple, contrasting views of it presented in the Bible, the less sense it makes.
Are you serious? Do you really want me to tell you how I make sense of the cross? (I wasn’t sure if you want me to explain it or if that is a rhetorical question.) It might be easier if you listed all the reasons you’ve found for the cross and then I’ll tell you which one I agree with.
All of them? All right, in short (and off the top of my head)…
Jesus was acting as a:
payment, role-model, substitution, scape-goat, ransom, warrior/conqueror, victim, cleansing agent, revolutionary or priest
in order to save:
everyone, a select group we can know the members of, a pre-selected group we can’t be sure who all may or may not belong to, or anyone who performs a certain deed (or says a certain prayer or holds a certain faith, or otherwise satisfies a given set of membership requirements.)
from:
sin, death, Satan, God’s wrath, eternal torment, separation from God, law, or fear.
This is my view, and certainly necessarily not the last word in orthodoxy!!!
payment (in two senses: purchasing a people and paying the penalty of sin); substition (-ary atonement), ransom (back to purchasing a people)
in order to save a group of people (not everyone: universalism), (I happen to believe its a pre-selected group, but that certainly isn’t in the list of must believes), certainly not someone who performs a deed
from sin, death, God’s wrath, eternal torment, separation from God (eternal torment), and, consequently, fear, I think it says we are saved from the punishment of breaking the law and the burden of the law, but not necessarily the law itself
If you get rid of a few of the outliers (role-model, revolutionary, anyone who performs a certain deed, and possibly Satan), I think that many of the other metaphors are different aspects or ways to define the same act
Thank-you, Longing, but there is a lot in that that doesn’t make sense to me.
Who was Jesus purchasing the people from?
How did Jesus’ act pay the penalty of sin?
Where is the morality in substitutionary atonement?
Why was anyone other than this pre-selected group created?
Why did God need to torture himself (and/or his son) to save his chosen people from his wrath?
If this pre-selected group is saved from sin, why do they still sin?
If this pre-selected group is saved from death, why do they still die?
If this group is “certainly not” chosen by their deeds, and are “saved from the punishment of breaking the law and the burden of the law”, then why is there a law at all?
I feel like the following may seem trite or simplistic. I don’t mean to be, but this is what I believe. I am no exegete and don’t know Greek (as I am sure you do), so I feel rather foolish sharing the answers as I understand them, but you asked, so here goes:
1. Purchasing them from slavery to sin. Redeeming them from the sentence hanging over them.
2. The separation from the Father on the cross and the cross itself in some way paid the penalty.
3. Not sure what you mean by morality, other than a just God requires justice and a loving God decided to endure the just punishment Himself. When someone hurts me, there’s a need for justice. When I forgive (instead of meting out justice), I take the pain into myself, rather than returning it to the other person.
4. I wish I knew the answer. I don’t understand it. But I know there’s a way in which the unelect are also responsible for their sin, their rejection of God, and the punishment (of being separated from him for eternity). I’ve really wrestled with this regarding family members. Now, here’s a leap of faith. I believe that God was good in this. And when we get into eternity, we’ll get the big picture (and we leave the 4 limiting dimensions that currently bound our reality).
5. See my third answer, above.
6. Saved from the consequences of sin: death. And eventually freed fully from bondage to sin in the new heavens and new earth. Why we don’t get zapped and stop sinning now? Why isn’t sanctification coincident with justification? Don’t know. But somehow it’s good.
7. Death in this case means eternal separation from God: soul death. Bodily death is in fact a good thing in the context of a person reconciled to God, as Paul points out in Phil 1, yet something still in God’s hands.
8. The law points to Christ. Also, I think all Christians - at least I did - grow in their understanding of grace. When I first came to faith, I was far more legalistic. I wanted to please God as a child wants to please the parent, but I was childishly proud and judgmental. Over time, I came to understand grace. I think history is a macrocosm of our lives. God took mankind through the law in his self-revelation before showing us grace. And as Paul said: without the law, he would not have known his sin. Even without a written law, we have one in our hearts which lets us know we are not ok.
Again, sometimes as we “chat,” I fear I am like a 3rd grader telling a grad student what she thinks. You know far more than me by virtue of your training. But, you asked, and I assume you aren’t trying to show me my illogic, but want to read what I think. So, here it is.
Ignore my training. Ignore my education. I’m not going to pull out Greek or advanced exegesis and smack you around with them. I am saying that the story of the crucifixion no longer makes sense to me. You are saying it makes sense to you. Using no other resource than the bible and our minds, I figured we might be able to understand why we disagree. I am not trying to make you feel foolish, nor am I planning to insult you. You have expressed a desire, though, to be a resource for skeptics and de-converting Christians. How do you expect to do that if you are unwilling to discuss the logic or illogic of your ideas?
Thanks for that clarification. I wasn’t sure. One of the problems with online discussions is that you can’t hear inflections or see expressions. And I do worry that though I have pondered these things for years and taken seminary courses, I am sure there’s a hole that one can find in my positions. For example, I’m sort of fearful of saying more on the DeCon site cause I know they’ll find something illogical in my response. I just have not thought things through in the same way… and, truly, I am satisfied with where I have come. There are so many unanswered questions no matter what position you take (I mean, the ultimate problem with Christianity is the matter of evil. How could it have occured in the first place?) At some point, you just have to say, this is what I believe. One of my favorite verses is Romans 9 where Paul ends up simply praising God for these mysteries. I love that and often feel that way.
What it looks like you’re saying, Longing, is that you’re willing to be wrong, but afraid that if someone points out you’re wrong, you may have to leave your comfortable position. So you’re fearful that someone will point out the hole you’re sure is in your positions, because you don’t want to change your mind.
Am I reading you correctly?
No. Not at all. Believe me, I’ve already shot holes all over my comfortable position (as I stated before) and at some point, I can either say “I don’t believe” or “I don’t understand and it’s ok.” I’ve chosen the latter. Oh, and I have had my boxes shaken up many a time and decided to change positions (like on the charismatic stuff). I just don’t see the point in sharing a point only to have it shot down. If the person doing the shooting has already heard my point and decided it is wrong, why waste my time and theirs? I think that my positions as shared on DeCon are not anywhere near as developed as the positions some already know and have dealt with (and perhaps rejected). So, why retrod the territory? If someone truly wants to hear my position (as flawed as I know it is, since all positions regarding God have to be flawed because no one has all the info), I am glad, even excited to share. So, ask away!
Quester,
I have to respond very briefly this week, but I will attempt a short response to your last response to me comments.
First, to comment on our original assumptions, and whether or not I am appealing to “the world we sense and experience” for evidence and answers…logic is a part of our world, as well as reason derived from experience. So, I claim that anything that can control a candidate for God is a greater candidate. We see this in everyday life. A parent is considered “greater” than his children…at least in the sense of having more authority. In the same sense, a teacher is considered greater than a student, a coach greater than the athlete, the President greater than the justice he appoints, the artist greater than his art. In every case, the causer is considered greater than the cause. So, logically we can deduce an uncaused God because if God had a cause that cause would be “greater” and a greater candidate for deity.
Now, for your alternatives:
1) to say that aliens are “God” does not answer the question of who God is…it only pushes the question back one step. Where did the aliens come from. In this scenario we made be able to call aliens the “cause” of humanity, but does that make them God if they were cause by someone or something else? Perhaps other aliens seeded their planet with life. If we assume there is a God, this scenario won’t work because we end up back at the naturalistic assumption that there was no beginning Cause, but a never-ending string of causes.
2) if you want to admit that the minds of unthinking ghosts determine all that goes on, then you have admitted that the supernatural does exist. And, if you want to do that, then there is no reason to deny the supernatural events recorded in the historical backdrop of the New Testament. As a result, Christ’s resurrection must be entirely plausible, meaning that He had the power to raise from the dead, just as He predicted before His death. Therefore, since Christ claimed to be the Son of God, made certain claims about God, claimed this power to resurrect came from God, and proved His power in resurrecting, then we ought to trust Him for our insights into who God is.
If you don’t want to admit all that, then you can just stick with ghosts controlling everything…including your thoughts…which means you have no reason to trust your own thoughts if they are controlled by stupid ghosts.
3) If one hundred cats have the same thought at the exact same moment we would want to know why. The odds are so overwhelmingly against such an event that the only logical response is to ask, “What caused this?” Things don’t “just happen”…especially things so improbable…and there are occurences much more improbable than this in our world, such as the formation of viable DNA or RNA through random chemical interactions.
Okay…sorry I don’t have more time…just wanted to respond to give you a chance to comment back if you like.
Thanks for the discussion.
And, fyi, I have been challenged! I love to have my brain excerized (as you have done).
Also, I figured with your education, you’d find these responses pedestrian, and not worth hearing. Like “I already know that.” But, again, I love to talk about these things and, as I said, your questions challenge me (my husband and I have had some good talks as a result, too).
I just don’t feel good when people I admired are called idiots… (see DeCon)
1. Purchasing them from slavery to sin. Redeeming them from the sentence hanging over them.
What do you think sin is?
3/5. When someone hurts me, there’s a need for justice. When I forgive (instead of meting out justice), I take the pain into myself, rather than returning it to the other person.
If you can forgive someone without nailing yourself to a cross first, why can’t God?
8. You seem to be saying that the purpose of the law is to make us feel bad about ourselves, and give the pre-selected something to be grateful they don’t actually have to follow.
Cthoward,
First, to comment on our original assumptions, and whether or not I am appealing to “the world we sense and experience” for evidence and answers…logic is a part of our world, as well as reason derived from experience.
Fair enough, but I find your logic to be lacking.
So, I claim that anything that can control a candidate for God is a greater candidate.
Are you familiar with the story of the stone cutter? One thing can be greater than another in one way, and lesser in another. There is no reason to assume that anything is greater in all ways.
So, logically we can deduce an uncaused God because if God had a cause that cause would be “greater” and a greater candidate for deity.
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that this premise should be treated as having any validity, as I’ve already argued by giving several alternatives.
1) to say that aliens are “God” does not answer the question of who God is…it only pushes the question back one step. Where did the aliens come from.
They evolved naturally. Please realize that I was not crediting the aliens with creating us. I don’t see that a creator is necessary. I was crediting them with acting in ways we might interpret as miraculous (parting seas, turning water to wine, making statues cry blood, etc).
2) if you want to admit that the minds of unthinking ghosts determine all that goes on, then you have admitted that the supernatural does exist.
Of course I have. We agreed to start with the premise that God exists. That admits there are supernatural things. What we are discussing is what we can know about the nature of those things. I state we can’t know anything by definition, but actually have to look at how the supernatural affects the natural.
And, if you want to do that, then there is no reason to deny the supernatural events recorded in the historical backdrop of the New Testament.
Wrong. There is no reason to deny the possibility of those supernatural events, but I can still deny those precise events happened, or even claim they were interpreted incorrectly.
As a result, Christ’s resurrection must be entirely plausible, meaning that He had the power to raise from the dead, just as He predicted before His death.
Wrong again. Your unfounded leaps in logic astound me. If opening the possibility that supernatural things can happen obliges one to believe Christ had the power to rise from the dead, why does your belief in Christ not oblige you to believe in the tooth fairy?
If you don’t want to admit all that, then you can just stick with ghosts controlling everything…including your thoughts…which means you have no reason to trust your own thoughts if they are controlled by stupid ghosts.
What I want to or don’t want to admit has nothing to do with what is. God can not be defined as something, just because you prefer to believe God is a certain sort of being.
And I have a little reason to trust my ghost-controlled thoughts as you your God-controlled ones.
3) If one hundred cats have the same thought at the exact same moment we would want to know why. The odds are so overwhelmingly against such an event that the only logical response is to ask, “What caused this?” Things don’t “just happen”…especially things so improbable…
Explain how this is more improbable than a rational, uncaused God who “just happened”?
There are many reasons for the law. I was just musing on the fact that we experience God first through the law before we see Him through grace.
I don’t think the purpose of it is to make us feel bad about ourselves. See http://lpkalal.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/the-perfect-church-part-1-the-sermon/ where I talk about conviction with grace. One purpose of the law is to unveil our sin to us, to reveal it. Feeling bad is shame. Conviction of sin is a whole different thing. Conviction of sin leads to a turn, repentance. Romans 1 says we are in denial about the depth of sin. The law shows us our sin. Paul said he was able to obey the whole law til he saw the command about coveting. Because he could manage outward obedience, he thought he was ok. But Do Not Covet told him sin was a matter of the heart, and he saw his own heart. Of course, this prepared him to turn to Christ.
I don’t think the law goes away. Christ fulfilled it for us, but we still obey. Why? John 14:23 says if we love Him, we will obey, and He will reveal Himself to us. I am NOT saying that obedience is a way to win His favor (like magic). It is a way to draw close to Him, to see life as He does, to act as He would. He’s taken care of the legal requirements to satisfy the law. But the law still shows us who God is and by adhering to it, not just outwardly, but in our souls, we become more like Him, we draw closer to Him, we fall more in love with Him. I say more about the purpose of the law here: http://lpkalal.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/gods-goal-for-believers/
[Sins are] perverted passions, sweet idolatries in which the longing heart embraces the wrong (futile) satisfaction… [Sin is the] treasonous pursuit of satisfaction from the wrong source.
– John Piper
I explain my take on sin more fully in:
http://lpkalal.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/adultery-among-us/
When I forgive, its for a relatively minor offense. The cross shows us just how great our offense is against God. We have no idea of its depth. Here’s a favorite quote: We are more evil than we ever dared imagine and more loved than we ever dared hope.
That’s about all my tired brain can get out tonight.
I am curious. While I enjoy writing about my favorite things - and my brain has been stretched - is this of any use to you?
Quester,
I feel I have to touch on the last question you posed, and then be done for the week…way too much going on this week…sorry.
I said: “If one hundred cats have the same thought at the exact same moment we would want to know why. The odds are so overwhelmingly against such an event that the only logical response is to ask, “What caused this?” Things don’t “just happen”…especially things so improbable…”
You asked: “Explain how this is more improbable than a rational, uncaused God who “just happened”?”
I don’t mean to get to philosophical here…but it is necessary with the subject matter…
If, for the sake of arguement, God is uncaused, then He must exist simply because He exists…not because of any cause, He simply is. Another way to say this is that it is necessary that He exists. He exists, is uncaused, therefore He exists necessarily. Some have argued that equal ends of spectrums tend to exist. We have matter and anti-matter to balance it out. Light and dark to balance it out. (I understand that there are theories that say that there is more anti-matter than matter…a slight imbalance…..but then the imbalance, according to the theories, is made up by the existence of energy.) Anyway, the point is that if one extreme exists, then it is at least logically possible for the other extreme to exist. So, if there are beings that, logically must necessarily not exist (think of our cause and effect scenarios…if your parents had not been born, or even if only one had died prior to your birth, then you would necessarily not exist, since you are the product of two specific people)…then, on the other end of the scale it is logical that there could be a being (or beings) that necessarily exists. I know, I know…a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo…but as far as logic goes, it seems reasonable enough to many people.
So, if there is an uncaused God, and He necessarily exists (which would seem to have to be the case if He is uncaused)…then there is, in terms of probability, a 100% chance that He exists…since His existence is necessary. And 100% probability beats any probability we can assign to the cat thought scenario.
Okay…that’s all for now. Hope it gives you something to chew on. I would like to address the supernatural events of the New Testament next…so stay tuned. Have a great week.
Cthoward,
If, for the sake of argument, the shared dream of one hundred cats is uncaused, then that shared dream must exist simply because it exists…not because of any cause, the cats simply dream. Another way to say this is that it is necessary that cats dream and occasionally one hundred will dream the same thing. Occasionally, one hundred cats share the same dream; this is uncaused, and therefore happens necessarily.
Do you see the problems with this argument now?
Perhaps it would be more clear if I said:
If, for the sake of arguement, the universe is uncaused, then it must exist simply because it exists…not because of any cause, it simply is. Another way to say this is that it is necessary that it exists. It exists, is uncaused, therefore it exists necessarily.
Quester,
Your scenarios are invalid. Another necessary conclusion of necessary existence is that the uncaused must always exist, eternally. However, 100 hundred cats (in your scenario) would not always dream the same dream…in fact the one hundred cats don’t even always exist to have perpetual dreams. They exist because they were caused…and the dreams exist because the cats dreamt them.
Likewise, the evidence points towards our universe having a beginning and a potential end. Ask an astro-physicist if our universe could end… Since the universe could very likely end one day, and probably had a beginning, then the universe cannot be a necessary being because it will not and has not always existed. It could potentially not exist, so it does not necessarily exist.
Good thoughts, though.
Cthoward,
Don’t get eternal mixed up with everlasting. Eternal means “unconditioned by space or time” not “without beginning or end”. There is just as much likelihood of the dream the cats share or universe we perceive being the perception here and now of an eternal dream or universe as what you might call a miracle being the present and local perception of an eternal being with reason and will.
If I am not clear, I present these to underscore the absurdity of the argument that if anything must necessarily exist, it must be one specific thing of your choosing. I do not agree that anything must necessarily exist, nor that if it exists that it must be uncaused, nor that a necessarily existing, uncaused being must possess reason, nor that a necessarily existing, uncaused, rational being must be God as the bible describes. I do not agree with any one of these points, let alone the entirety you seem to be trying to express as logical, by definition.
Quester (and Longing for Holiday in the second half),
I understand you don’t agree…that, combined with my limits in explaining what I “see” so that you can “see” it, too, urges me to move on. Let me just leave you with this…my point in bringing the whole thing up was not to explain individual seemingly miraculous events, but to answer your question, “Who is God?” The arguments I have used so far do not address such events and their causes. I have only tried to show that, assuming there is a God, He must have certain attributes to rightly be called “God.” Otherwise He is just another part of this temporal, confined universe, like you and me. In this case we might call Him “supernatural,” but certainly not “God,” and we are no closer to an answer for “Who is God?”
I like that story of the Stonecutter…I have heard it somewhere before. And, I agree with the premise…that “greatness” is not always what it seems…is not necessarily being in a position of power. But, what I was appealing to was something different: greatness on the basis creation. An artist is greater than that which he creates. A parent is greater in the sense that he/she creates the child, and, therefore, has authority. A coach is greater because of his ability to mold an athlete into a better athlete. Of course all of these analogies are limited (as all analogies are). Their are other factors involved…a painting is inanimate, a child is a person, too, and “created equal” just like “all men,” and athletes contribute significantly to their increase in ability. But, we can derive from these a principle of greatness based on the creative process. The greater in these examples is not greater in every way, but in the sense of being a creator. The painting is the property of the painter, the child answers to the authority of the parent, the athlete submits to the molding of the coach. According to this principle we ought to submit to our Cause…not just our immediate cause or causes (although this is true, also…such as the case of child to parent), but the Cause at the beginning of the string that brought us here, since that Cause will be “greater” than all the other causes.
Anyway…I said I would move on…sorry for ranting and rambling on…I get carried away sometimes.
**************
On another note…you asked Longing how we know Jesus Jesus was killed. Are you aware that in addition to the four individual gospel accounts that record His death there are also several other contemporary (first century) sources that speak of it? Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Cornelius Tacitus, and Josephus, all first century writers, mention the death of Jesus. They describe it as “suffered the extreme penalty…at the hands of Pontius Pilatus,” “condemned…to the cross at the instigation of our own [Jewish] leaders,” “the Jews…executing their wise king,” and Thallus even tried to explain away the darkness that took place during Jesus’ crucifixion as an eclipse…all the while he takes it for granted that Jesus lived, died, and that darkness occurred during His crucifixion, just as three of the gospel writers record.
With this sort of evidence, if we question the crucifixion of Jesus we might as well question nearly every major event of Roman history since we have much less evidence for their occurring. Much of our knowledge of the Roman Empire (and many other empires and time periods for that matter) comes from just a couple sources. But we still believe that Julius Caesar lived, ruled, and died, that Nero persecuted Christians and that Rome burned during his reign, that Otho, Caligula, Augustus, and Tiberius were all emperors of Rome. And for Jesus’ crucifixion we have at least 8 contemporary sources, not even counting the book of Acts, Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, and other New Testament books, and not counting early Christian writers of the second century who, although they did not witness the events, were able to hear first-hand accounts of the events from those who did, and record them in their writings.
Cthoward,
To say that God has certain attributes because otherwise you would not define Him as God is, again, circular and unhelpful. None of your arguments about God have been demonstrated as necessary, by reason, or by reference to the world we perceive.
As for your historians, we don’t really know what Thallus said. Eight hundred or so years after Jesus supposedly lived, George Syncellus (a Christian) quoted Julius Africanus (a Christian who lived about two hundred years after Jesus supposedly did) as saying, “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me.” That third hand account is all we have left of whatever Thallus may or may not have said.
Somewhere between forty and two hundred years after Jesus’ death, Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a letter to his son. One of the fragments left of that letter includes the words, “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”
We can assume that this “wise king” was Jesus, or one of the hundreds of others who claimed to be the Messiah foretold by prophecy. Either way, all we know from this is that the Jews executed someone, and this Syrian calls that someone a “wise king” equal to Socrates or Pythagoras.
Tacitus, about one hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived, wrote, “Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he was responsible for the great fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.” But where did he get his information? Should we assume that the Romans kept meticulous records of every execution, and that these records were not destroyed in the great fire Tacitus mentions? Or should we assume that Tacitus is repeating what the Christians provide as their own origin?
Flavius Josephus is your best argument. He was born a mere thirty-seven years after Jesus supposedly lived. What remains of his writings tells us, “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”
Ignoring the scholars who claim this to be a later forgery, we still have to wonder where Josephus got this information from.
Your use of the word “contemporary” leaves something to be desired. None of these historians wrote anything while Jesus was alive. None of them witnessed the events they record. You also cite Paul’s letters, though Paul did not witness Christ’s life or death, either.
All we really have are the gospel accounts, which can only be considered contemporary if you consider fifty to a hundred years after the events happened to be a contemporary account.
Now, much of what we can claim to know about the Roman emperors comes from the works of Suetonius. He claims to have used the imperial archives to find what was written by historians and others during the lives of those emperors, but much of what he writes seems to be gossip and opinion. So, yes, take what he says with a fair amount of salt, as well.
I’ll put a question to you both. Does it seem to me that when we are speaking about ancient history past, that it’s very hard to be objective? That you come to the discussion with one position or another and look at the facts at hand (which aren’t many) and interpret them from your own perspective? That there isn’t really a purely objective view to be found?
I mean “it seems to me” not “does it seem to me” cause it does!
Longing…
I will agree and disagree. Yes, it is diffcult to look at things without any bias…probably impossible. As a result, our interpretations are prone to being subjective. But, there are objective elements on at least to counts. First, something specific did happen. We may be at a loss at times to know just exactly what happened, but, objectively speaking, what happened happened, and that is not going to change, it is not subjective. Second, the effects of what happened are also objective. We might disagree about the effects and our interpretations of history, but, in the end, the real effects are objective.
So, our goal is to find the objective. Sometimes we don’t have enough information and sometimes we can’t get past our biases…but we still strive for the objective, the truth of what happened.
There is at least one more thing to consider: our interpretations may not be settled, and we may not have arrived at the objective truth of historical events…but even in this position we can still appeal to necessary effects of possible historical truths. For example, we can debate whether or not a particular person was blown to bits by a landmine in a particular war…but one thing is for sure: if he was blown to bits, then some of the necessary results are that he died, that he had no more children (unless he had visited a sperm bank), that he had no more personal interaction with history (unless you believe in ghosts). These effects are objective even if we are as of yet unsure about the objectivity of the cause.
That’s probably way more info and historical philosophical jargon than you wanted…but that’s what you get for asking such a deep question.
Clint
Quester,
I understand that none of the sources were written while Jesus was alive, but this is typical of historians (especially ancient historians). Writing within 50-75 years after the events is still considered contemporary because the accounts can still be based on first-hand testimony. Even if the historian did not witness the events, they have plenty of sources still living who did. This is the case of the outside sources I listed, as well as with the gospels and Paul’s letters. At least two of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses (Matthew and John), and the letters of John and Peter and James were also written by first-hand sources. All of this is typical and more than acceptable for historical criticism. This is how historians operate…write about what they witness, and interview witnesses or other firsthand sources for the rest. The event of Jesus’ crucifixion is at least as evident as any other single event of Roman history, if not more so. If you want to doubt that He was crucified by Pilate at the instigation of Jewish officials then you might as well doubt that any other historical event occurred.
One more thing…something that is often overlooked, but that is very critical in this sort of discussion is the fact that the writings about the events of Jesus’ life and death were circulated while eye-witnesses were still living. If these records of the events were false, then the still-living witnesses would have said so. Even if all of the Christian witnesses kept their mouths shut (which is unlikely), there were still plenty of non-Christian witnesses alive to deny the stories. This would be tantamount to circulating a history book today that recorded a Japanese invasion of New York in 1948…obviously no invasion took place, and there are plenty of people alive today who lived in New York in 1948 who would deny that the events took place. The history book would be written off as false, and the story would go no further. But, the eye-witnesses of Jesus’ life and death (and resurrection…see 1Cor 15:5-6) didn’t deny…at the most they only tried to explain things away (such as in the Talmud, or in the case of Thallus). The documents continued circulating even while eye-witnesses were plentiful. This is an attestation to their (at least general) accuracy.
By the way…the gospel accounts were probably written 25-50 years after Jesus’ death (except for maybe John)…and some of Paul’s letters were written as early as 15-20 years after. Additionally, a fragment from Qumran that could be a portion of Mark has been dated to the late 40s AD, so, given the time it would take for this gospel to circulate and copies to be made, we could reasonably estimate that Mark may have been written 10-20 years after Jesus.
Longing,
I apologize for not getting back to you about #50 above. There was a lot to think about in that response, and after a while I’d forgotten that I never actually shared any of my thoughts.
First of all, I’m afraid that I do not see the difference between feeling guilty and ashamed and feeling convicted of sin. Your link provides examples of the former; could you provide examples of the latter?
Secondly, I can accept that the purpose of the law is to become more like God. Thank-you. I’m not sure I could want to be like that sort of God, but it makes some sense as to why there are so many laws if those who will be saved by God are predestined to do so.
Thirdly, that is one of the best definitions for sin I have ever read! Thanks for sharing it. I’m not sure, though, how we can be owned by, or purchased from, our perverted passions.
Going ahead to your not-quite-a-question in #57, I’m not sure I know the answer. What I am trying to say is that we have very little evidence, in fact I’m not certain we have any, which makes it hard to say with any certainty what did or did not happen. Interpreting evidence may be subjective, but evaluating it for reliability has less room for subjectivity.
Clint,
I am curious about the dates you have cited and your idea that two of the gospel accounts were actually written by first-hand witnesses, but I’ve boxed up most of my books, hoping to move this month- so I won’t ask you your sources as I’m not about to dig out mine.
If you want to doubt that He was crucified by Pilate at the instigation of Jewish officials then you might as well doubt that any other historical event occurred.
I do doubt that any historical event occurred exactly as related to us in history. I see no reason not to.
One more thing…something that is often overlooked, but that is very critical in this sort of discussion is the fact that the writings about the events of Jesus’ life and death were circulated while eye-witnesses were still living. If these records of the events were false, then the still-living witnesses would have said so.
And if that was enough to keep the stories from being printed, passed around and believed, no one would be able to sell a tabloid today (and horoscopes would not appear in any newspaper).
This would be tantamount to circulating a history book today that recorded a Japanese invasion of New York in 1948…obviously no invasion took place, and there are plenty of people alive today who lived in New York in 1948 who would deny that the events took place.
A closer analogy would be printing a history book that records the execution of a criminal in New York in 1948, and claims that the records of that execution were suppressed by the government. An invasion is a big, noticeable event. One more execution among many- not so much. It’s also much harder to successfully deny.
The documents continued circulating even while eye-witnesses were plentiful. This is an attestation to their (at least general) accuracy.
Unless the entirety of the New Testament is one fictional account after another, in which case there never were any eye-witnesses.
Feeling guilty/shame (of course, these are my takes on this): self-centered, I feel ick about myself, beat myself up, feel like a failure, feel ashamed, etc.
Conviction: Oh, God, I see I have sinned against You. And I repent in dust and ashes. Leads to real change. A piercing of the soul. Not a feeling of heavy guilt that lasts, but a feeling of freedom to move away from the constraining sin into obedience.
More later.
Q: what do you do with Paul? Was he lying? Or sincerely deluded? Or misquoted? What about the 500 he says saw the risen Lord?
I’m afraid I still can’t see the difference. Is it how long one wallows in the guilt and shame before doing something about it?
Q: what do you do with Paul? Was he lying? Or sincerely deluded? Or misquoted? What about the 500 he says saw the risen Lord?
There seems to be a near consensus in the biblical scholastic community that not all of “Paul’s” letters were written by Paul. As for the others, he might be deluded, misquoted, exaggerated, lying, erroneous, or simply fictional. The 500 may be imaginary, exaggerated, lying, or wrong. Or they could be evidence of all sorts of supernatural phenomena or pantheons of gods. Perhaps the shapeshifting trickster god Loki went south to amuse himself for a while. It’s hard to say, for certain.
When you say near consensus about Paul, you are not including the conservative seminaries: Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, Westminster, etc. etc. - where the initial assumption is inerrancy.
The way I define shame/guilt is that it never resolves. It is about me, not about God.
Conviction is His act and leads immediately to change. Sometimes guilt/shame does find its way there and is transformed to something about God.
All I can talk about is what I have experienced. I’ll give some biblical examples later.
Really? Okay, I did not know that.
So, conviction is guilt and shame that motivates change?
NO. From my perspective, shame and guilt can have an ok place, but mostly they are man-made manipulations that others have imposed on us and then we learn subconsciously to impose on ourselves. Sometimes they get transformed by God into conviction, but normally they are manmade deadends. This kind of guilt and shame makes us feel crappy and useless. Some call this false guilt and shame.
On the other hand, conviction comes from without. It isn’t about me. It isn’t wallowing or selfpity or feeling shamed or put down or any of that. We can reject it, but when we accept it, change follows. It feels like grace, not like shame. It liberates. When Jesus told that woman who He saved from stoning, “Your sins are forgiven; go and sin no more,” I think she probablyh felt convcition. So did the woman at the well. I call a friend of mine the velvet hammer cause he has a way of pointing out sins in love. You feel convicted and loved at the same time. False shame and guilt make you feel shitty, not loved. I think you described it yourself in how gently Jesus used to humble you.
When I felt that Christ was humbling me (example 1,example 2), it was all about me and how I had fallen short of who I thought I was and how I could become more what I thought God wanted me to be. When I felt guilt