Is this my Future?
I am a little drained from writing so much last week. I have a lot to think about, and a lot to sort through. I want to have faith in God, but it is whittling away despite my fervent prayers and study.
In the meantime, I found this article by DagoodS called Can’t Win. He is a much better writer than me, and fully expresses the predicament of losing faith in God. Yesterday, in a comment on this site, I admitted that I had lost all faith that God would answer any prayer. It is rattling to even type that confession here, but there it is. I do have much to think about the implications of that statement.
As a fully deconverted Christian, DagoodS may also be predicting my future in his article. Maybe. I don’t know what the future holds for me, but I will keep searching, and will continue to be honest.
Read the article here. It is long, but read it to the end and you will be rewarded. DagoodS expresses many of my own thoughts better than I ever could.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
HeIsSailing,
One thing I think needs to be addressed is the idea that faith equates to the strong belief that God exists. DagoodS alludes to this in his leprechaun allegory. A Christian is not a person who believes that God exists, tries to be as sinless as possible, and tries to convince others to do the same. A Christian is a person who, because of believing that God exists, sees who God is and who s/he is, bows in her spirit before that God and seeks the relationship God meant her to have, and is brought by God into that relationship (which is possible on the basis of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection).
It is interesting to note that the Bible never addresses the person who does not believe in a God. It addresses those who don’t know God. Believing in God the way the little girl believes in the leprechaun will do no one any more good than her belief in the leprechaun does, unless it prompts us to make a choice that will test the belief and bring us to knowledge.
Faith in God means the same thing as faith in any person. I believe (most heartily) in the existence of Elvis, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, and yet I put faith in none of them. I do have faith in my father, whom I know. If Dad promises me that he’ll drive me to the airport next week, I do have to have enough faith to get in the car. After that, if my faith weakens, it doesn’t change his promise. We’re still going to the airport, provided he has the ability to take us there. If you or DagoodS ever put your faith in the God who promised you forgiveness for your sin based on his Son, then whatever your belief today, it’s a done deal (yes, also on the basis that God has the ability to forgive sin). On the other hand, no matter how hard you believed in God before, if the goods were never received, the transaction never completed, the cheque never cashed – if you never got in the car – then the Christianity you had was not the Christianity described by the Bible. I am not here to judge whether or not that was your experience or whether or not you are/were a Christian; that is between you and God. But were you ever a Christian, God’s promise to you does not depend on your holding up your end of the bargain. If he has forgiven you, then he cannot withdraw his forgiveness even if you withdraw your belief.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Hi HIS! I know how you feel so much–obviously we are different people with different experiences, but essentially I am going through the same thing. I confidently de-converted just over a week ago, but my mind and heart still flutter back to Christianity at brief times. I guess the best thing to say is, don’t be afraid to be honest with how you feel, and the decision you make today doesn’t have to be your last and final one. I do hope someday to be a Christian again, but right now if I ignored my unbelief, it would be helping nothing.
As cheesy as it sounds, keep searching, but be honest with how you feel. For me, I would rather be a sincere unbeliever who has the potential to believe in God, than an insincere, scared christian.
All the best, I look forward to reading that article!
your friend,
marie
Also, hi Jennypo!
I like what you said, but unfortunately, that kind of stuff is hard to believe–or have faith in from this perspective. I can read what you wrote, and I know I believed it before, but it just does not do anything for me anymore. I wish I could be inspired by your words, because I can see that you wrote them with care and sincerity, but I do not and cannot have faith in God, cannot know God, let alone believe in God. (I just speak for myself here)
But despite that, please keep encouraging people
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
That was an amazing article. He explained it perfectly, you are right. I would have to say that I disagree somewhat with that Jennypo commented. For one, how do we know that being saved works like a transaction? When is the transaction not completed, or when is it? Those parameters are unclear.
Also, I think that (at least from the perspective of a de-convert), it is impossible for a lot of us to have faith in God without definite belief. At least for me, belief HAS to come first. I cannot act like I know and love a God that I heavily doubt exists–even if I could act like I had faith, it would inherently be insincere as I would not be able to fully “have faith” that God was actually there. It is more the reverse of the Elvis/George Bush thing–We can see and touch and meet George W. Bush, but God is more like the leprechaun, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus…
I just cannot comprehend how or why God would expect us to “know” him, when it can be near impossible to “believe” in him in the first place.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 am
JennyPo sez:
“A Christian is not a person who believes that God exists, tries to be as sinless as possible, and tries to convince others to do the same. A Christian is a person who, because of believing that God exists, sees who God is and who s/he is, bows in her spirit before that God and seeks the relationship God meant her to have, and is brought by God into that relationship”
JennyPo, here is the type of Christian that I was. For nearly as long as I can remember, since I was a little boy, I was raised to believe I was a sinner before God Almighty. I believed that I was lost in my sin before a Holy God. I trusted in the fact that Jesus, God’s only son, humbled himself to become a man and came to Earth. He had a short ministry, then gave himself up to be crucified by the Romans. That crucifixion was performed on Passover, the day on which a perfect lamb was slaughtered cover the Sins of the faithful. Now Jesus, the Holy Lamb of God, had shed his blood for all of humanity. He became Sin for us, and died in our place. If we only trust in that atonement, we are saved by the Grace of God, and there is nothing that we can do to earn our own salvation. Our salvation is never earned. Our righteousness before God is like filthy rags, and we have no choice but to fall before a Merciful God, and ask him forgive us of our sins made possible because of the death of his Son.
That is the type of Christian I was. JennyPo, this is not head knowledge. I fully believed this, trusted this, lived it since I was a little boy. I am now 43 years old. Sure I had ups and downs in my faith, we all do. But ultimately, I fully believed. It is the only faith that I know.
And I still want to believe. I have had this, my only faith, for a very long time, and it hurts and it is painful when I feel it being pulled away from me. Using your analogy, you have faith in your Father taking you to the airport, because he has proven himself trustworthy. He has made a million promises to you in the past, and he has never let you down. So when your dad takes a wrong turn, or stops for a hamburger along the way, you don’t worry, you know that eventually you will get to the airport because he has a proven track record with you. The Bible and our religion makes certain claims. Can we rest on those claims? Has God really proven himself trustworthy?
I am not a Mormon despite that fact that I really like Mormons. They are great people, moral, industrious, honest, all the qualities that I find attractive. I would love to be a Mormon, but the problem is the claims that their brand of theology makes are simply unbelievable. I don’t need proof that something is correct, but when belief is based on something as patently rediculous as the Mormon theology, I cannot just decide I want to believe it, then have faith in it. There is an intellectual disconnect there if I do. Should Christianity, or belief in Jesus Christ be any different? As I look at the claims that our brand of theology makes, I am finding it more an dmore unbelievable, and keeping any faith in it is a terrible struggle.
It is getting late here at HeIsSailing Headquarters, and I must get ready for work. But I am writing an article on this subject. It will be up soon. Thank you for writing, JennyPo.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 am
jennypo,
Thanks for reading my blog. I am very…humbled. And even that is not the right word. This was my life. Nothing more, nothing less. I am touched that others can be encouraged by it.
We have a plaque over our stove. It reads, “Faith is not thinking that God can; it is knowing that God will.” When I prayed, I knew God would send something. My mind could not even compute the possibility that he would not. I wasn’t asking for money, or my health, or anything that I could tell was selfish. I wanted a deeper relationship with him, by knowing who he was.
However, I note that you appear to use the word “faith” synonymously as “trust.” Are they the same? I understand why you would not have “faith” in Bush or Elvis or Hitler—being humans that have no relationship with you, naturally you do not trust them.
I often see these two words—“faith” and “trust” interchanged in our discussions on theism. I don’t think they are the same. For example, I am told that I have “faith” in driving over a bridge and it doesn’t collapse. Bet most have heard that in a sermon.
But that is not “faith.” That is “trust” based upon experience. I have traveled over 10’s of 100’s of bridges that have not collapsed. I know people that have as well. I have seen bridges, built bridges, (crossing small streams as a child) have studied the geometry of bridges, etc. Based upon my long bridge-history, tonight when I drive home and cross over a bridge with little fear of it falling—is that “faith” or “trust”?
“Faith” is something different. It is something that we have little or no evidence for, yet believe it anyway. We have prayed for sick people that have gotten better, and some that have not. Some that have died. When we prayed with “faith” that a person would get better, was not “trust” based upon past experience—our past experience was that God could do what He wanted, and there would be no way to verify it—yet it was equally expected. Our faith said it would happen. We trusted the doctors (since experience said they made others well) but had faith in God (‘cause he could do what no doctor could.)
Does that explain why I see a difference?
Can I spring off your analogy of your Dad for a moment?
You had faith or trust in your Dad taking you to the airport. Based upon the relationship, the ability, and maybe some past history. But what if someone pointed out some curious observations about your Father as to why he may not take you to the airport.
You would scoff at this stranger’s claim. You know your father. An idea that upon entering the car, he would NOT take you to the airport is ridiculous. So you decide to point out to the stranger how they are completely misinformed as to your father. But as you inspect their claims, and other claims, you notice these ARE curious observations. And you see how they could be troubling to people who don’t know your Father.
You ask your Dad to explain to these strangers how they are wrong about him.
And hear nothing.
You keep studying, seeing if there is something they missed, pointing out on occasion how they have misconstrued some items. And you ask Dad to explain to these strangers how they are wrong about him.
And hear nothing.
Eventually you start asking your Dad to explain some of these things.
And hear nothing.
You start to point out that you are having real concerns about reaching the airport, and some assurance, a word, a whisper, even a slight nod would be very comforting.
And hear nothing.
You start to beg, and beat on your Father’s chest, imploring him to say something, anything about airports, or bus depots, or cars, or traveling or riding, or some fragment by which you could hold, to know that your Father will do what’s best, whether it is taking you to the airport or not.
And hear nothing.
You point out that one of the observations is the claim that your Father loves you more than any Father has ever loved any child, and wants a relationship more special than any other relationship that has ever existed, and has committed the greatest sacrifice that any Parent has ever done for their child and is begging, pleading with you to bond together, and that is exactly what you are trying to do the best you possibly can.
And hear nothing.
While one can still retain faith that this father will answer, one could equally start to trust, based upon this experience, this father will not.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 am
**It is interesting to note that the Bible never addresses the person who does not believe in a God. It addresses those who don’t know God.** I think that’s because in those times, everyone believed in some sort of God or Gods. There wasn’t really a person who didn’t believe in any God whatsoever, and therefore, why would the Bible be addressed to those people?
**On the other hand, no matter how hard you believed in God before, if the goods were never received, the transaction never completed, the cheque never cashed – if you never got in the car – then the Christianity you had was not the Christianity described by the Bible. ** I realize you’re using this as an analogy, but doesn’t that reduce Christianity to a rewards system? As in, believe a certain way in order to receive Heaven/avoid hell (and I think HIS touched on this in his ‘why he loved Jesus’ topic).
At any rate, DagwoodS, that was a lovely article. It was obvious that you truly did search very hard for answers, and wanted the answer to be a confirmation of God’s existence.
HIS, if DagwoodS’ article is a hint of your future, I hope that if you get there, it brings you peace. Or whatever the answer may entail.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
I really appreciate Dagoods stuff – I think I have read him on Debunking Christianity and possibly Philatheia – either way I think he has a very good spirit to the things he writes – and I have always appreciated honesty (which he brings in truckfuls).
I haven’t been a Christian for nearly as long as he has been and studied all the things he has – with that depth – but I am trying my best to see all issues from all angles.
I am not sure about the whole de-conversion thing – since my idea about conversion is ‘bit by bit – piece by piece’ – or conversion is the changing of the mind from one value aspect to another value aspect (which needs to happen if we should grow at all) – and that can be de-converted but who would want to lose values of love, contentness, joy, loss of anxieties, and whatever else their is to focus on in this faith (experience varies per individual).
I am not in the same place as Dagoods, or in some sense, even where your shooting from on this issue (or in life) – although I respect both of your outlooks – I am just not in the same mind-set on the whole thing – gotta love diversity.
My reasons are quite several and if I was to name a huge whack of them we could talk for years, nevermind days. But some things include:
(1) A Logical Faith: I don’t find a problem with asking questions about the aspects of many faith values – but to say a value is useless (ex: prayer) is possibly ‘jumping the gun’. This all depends on on’e spiritual outlook/worldview – me I have very little problem with a faith that is grounded in reality (as much as it can be) and the aspects of the faith that look ‘foolish’ but prove to be quite helpful (ex: prayer – meditation and teachings of values).
(2) Perspective: I think everyone brings something to the faith (or the book) that others don’t and I call it a learning ‘perspective’. I think mine includes aspects of the Jewish outlook and a closer look into the ideals being taught (and how they work this day in age). An example would be I see faith as something we ‘all do, all the time’ – and it’s not quite the foreign idea as perpetuated by a lot spiritual people. Also I see this faith as something that needs less hyper-spiritual BS and more realism – ex: church is a place to meet and talk about issues we can work on (one with another).
(3) The Books: I have very little problem with the bible at all. I see each book as existing singularily (in most cases) and refect the world of the day (historical). I see the book as God meeting us on a human level – or God humbling himself to do so (something I feeling more strongly these days is a good view). But each book doesn’t have to be exact anyways – Luke, Peter, James, John, and Matthew are different – as different as me, you, and Dagoods – and we all come from various levels of understanding – and various ways of telling strories (then again my culture is huge on storytelling).
(4) Culture: We mention 4 aspects of the human self: emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual – I think feeding the spiritual aspect is very important also (no matter what religious faith). It’s funny but the Aboriginal communities have a strong oral tradition that spans back as far as time can be counted – which revealed many mythical stories. Point being, they think they have them acurately – so if they can pass on a strong oral tradition for many years (spanning over 10,000 years) – how can it be so hard for some disciples of Jesus to pass on anything in a mere 70? (I mean that’s a logical viewpoint taught to me by people).
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“I often see these two words—“faith” and “trust” interchanged in our discussions on theism. I don’t think they are the same.” (Dagoods)
Should I ‘trust’ your thoughts on this subject – or better yet – have ‘faith’ you are correct in your thinking? I think the words are synonamous on some level – but this is only one aspect of the term (definition of) ‘faith’ anyways.
“On the other hand, no matter how hard you believed in God before, if the goods were never received, the transaction never completed, the cheque never cashed – if you never got in the car – then the Christianity you had was not the Christianity described by the Bible.” (???)
Whoa, I am not sure who said this but this sounds like the Capitalist manifesto from some CEO of Christianity (and capitalism was not a Jewish invention in the 1st century). That view right there is a very Euro-centric way of looking at the biblical texts and is mis-leading (and in some senses biased)…since it is reading a later ideology (17th century) into writings from another time period – this has a ‘ring of un-truth’ or ‘I missed the point of the biblical writer’ inherent in it.
‘and hear nothing’ (Dagoods)
I find this line of thinking most interesting – almost as if Dagoods believes the follower should actually audibly ‘hear’ the voice of God (in the context of prayer). Even the Jewish writers saw that God (Jehovah) was changing tactics in the Elijah story of the ’still, small voice’ (almost inaudbile) – I think it was heard in the whispering of the wind blowing by (very low) and not in the ruckus of other wild and noisy events (ex: thunder and volcanoes) (a change from God of the desert to God of the persecuted as an example).
But I would say the theology of hearing God has changed even more since Elijah. We do have in this current context writings of the disciples/apostles and their writings/teachings of Jesus. Maybe the voice is coming from within now – in the form of the ‘digested word’. The ‘word becomes flesh’ – we read, listen, hear and then incorporate the values of the ‘Christ’ into our lives – in this sense we hear the voice of God from within (ie: by reading and living them – practicing the values in all scenarios) – which seems to be a huge Matthew teaching (as Jesus is always mentioned as saying similar ideas).
I don’t think it means ‘God has stopped speaking’ but that the words are enduring and still speaking (and this about God) – generations after written and listened to for the first time – now they are ‘within us’ – which I am gathering was always a Jewish value (ex: burnt on their minds and hearts). Where is this expectation in the scriptures exactly (gospels/apostles writings)? Is the actual word ‘audible’ mentioned?
But how much more do we want God to speak then is the next question? We have 66 books compiled – which is more than enough for one lifetime of reading and evaluating for any ardent student. Heck even the 29 about the Christ can take a lifetime of study. If we reject ‘God spoke’ – we reject because we ‘did not hear with our ears’ – but if we accept the witness of the books (as they claim) – then maybe we are ‘hearing the voice of God’ (written generations ago). How much more speaking has to be done after the appearance of the ‘Christ’ in either a Jewish system or Christian one?
But I think this is answered by one’s view of spirituality and how God speaks to them. I have not developed a view of God audibly speaking to me from within the texts – as many would teach – but that the teachings/writings are personally interacting (speaking to) with me (I read, values challenged, I choose to change, process continues). Do I know what to fall back upon when my world is challenged? I pray (meditate) and oddly enough the value ‘pops up’ – the answer to every situation is ‘in rememberance’ within me.
Do I desire faith in an unknown God? Not really. What is unkown is my certainty about life. Some Jewish writer’s make claims about God speaking – then some of the proof is in our hands to study. The real only uncertainty I have about life is ‘my future and where I will be’. I trust the written teachings and place faith in God that they are ‘good’. Does God promise to ‘read my future for me’ – no. Here’s some teachings about God to guide you – I am the decision maker.
Another point of view is this: Maybe some do not audibly ‘hear the words of God’ but if Moses could neither look upon God (for fear of death – Isaiah has a same scenario happen to him) – what makes me so bold to think the audible voice of God will be any different? Also worth some little consideration.
‘he who has ears to hear, let him hear’
or
‘he who wants to comprehend these ideas, let them’
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion as to the definition of a “Christian”. I believe that a person can believe about God and not be a Christian. A person may even believe that there is a God and try to follow the teachings of Jesus, and still not be a Christian. The word “Christian” is just a word, and you may define it differently than I, but in my experience, it involves being in agreement with God about myself, my sin, my ability to do anything about that sin, and, most importantly, about His Son and the purpose of His death. How can I say, “I am a Christian – a follower of Christ”, but, “I’ll only follow those teachings that are pallitable to me.” That makes me a half-follower of Jesus – can there be such a thing? Anyway, I’m not arguing with anyone, just clarifying what the definition of “Christian” is to me.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
**There seems to be quite a bit of confusion as to the definition of a “Christian”. ** Yup. It’s been that way since Jesus ascended.
**How can I say, “I am a Christian – a follower of Christ”, but, “I’ll only follow those teachings that are pallitable to me.” ** Herein lies the fun part, though. How does one define ‘teachings?’ It looks as though you are defining teachings as in terms of yourself, sin, God’s face and the purpose of Jesus’s death, so you’re listing ‘beliefs’ along with the teachings. Whereas I would define teachings as what Jesus taught in the Gospels — as in, when he was asked about the commandments, he said to love God and love one’s neighbor. Or he taught in parables. So there are people who would follow those teachings who still wouldn’t count as Christians based on what you’ve listed.
Here’s a general question for anyone — in terms of the Bible, what are the clear-cut, no way around it, ways that one knows one is saved? All I’ve really found is believe in the Son, and ‘publicaly confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in one’s heart in the resurrection.’ Other than that, it comes across as somewhat vague.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Yep, societyvs, we have discussed at Debunking Christianity. I don’t remember what about.
societyvs: and hear nothing’ (Dagoods)
I find this line of thinking most interesting – almost as if Dagoods believes the follower should actually audibly ‘hear’ the voice of God (in the context of prayer).
Hmmm….well…yes and no. I was just using the analogy as in the form of an actual person, but you raise an interesting point.
As humans we communicate differently and learn differently. We have learned that other humans may not communicate in the same fashion that we do. Some are audio, some visual, some big picture, some intricate details, some in writing, some in speech, some in physical touch, some in mathematical precision, some in imagery. In fact, we attempt to classify people by personality types and communication types to better understand how we differently communicate, to do so more effectively.
I would hope that if there was a God, since humans could figure this out, he could as well. The analogy of the Tower of Babel would aptly point out the Abrahamic God did.
In the same way, we would think by necessity, if God wants to communicate to a variety of people, he would need to do so in a variety of ways. And yes, some would even learn about and relate to God more effectively by an audible voice. Imagine if I came into a blog and ALWAYS wrote the same thing over and over. I ALWAYS wrote the same letter to my wife, my children, my boss, my friends, my relatives and my acquaintances. Would we consider that effective communication? Or would we recommend I might try modifying my way to better facilitated communication?
(And, I might note, if you hold Acts as history, God DID give Saul/Paul an audible voice to communicate to him. If you want something from the gospels/apostles writing. *wink*)
But is that what I hear claimed about God by theists? Nope. What I see, unsurprisingly, is the theist limits their God to communicate in one particular way. Not coincidentally, in a way which happens to be effective for that particular theist.
A fundamentalist Protestant claims that God ONLY communicates in a specific set of books. Amazingly (not really) the set of books the Protestant is convinced by. But the Protestant decries…the Catholic. Who claims that God communicates through a set of books AND church tradition. Less Amazingly, the set of books and church tradition the Catholic subscribes to.
But the Catholic tells me the Charismatic Christian is wrong who claims God speaks through tongues. The Charismatic Christian tells me that the Mormon is wrong for God speaking through Golden Plates. Who says the Wiccan is wrong for how they say God speaks…and so on and so on and so on.
What happens is that the theist puts their God in a small little box, clutching to their chest and proclaiming to the world, “This, THIS is how God must communicate and to ask or expect or claim any other way is incorrect.”
Why? Isn’t God bigger than that? Although for me, personally, I was not actually expecting an audible voice, on the other hand, among 6 Billion other human beings, would it be that shocking to learn there was another person who did?
If another person told you, societyvs, that they expected an audible voice, or a vision, or a miracle—is your God big enough to do that? Or is it limited to only communicate the same way you expect?
This is only natural, of course. When we communicate with each other, we go through a two step process.
First, to have a starting point, we begin to discuss in the way in which we communicate. If visual, we start off visual. Audio; audio and so on.
And, due to our experience, we almost expect the other person to give us clues as to how well we are communicating. And how ineffective we are. If we are not being successful, we enter the second step.
We either choose to not communicate, and continue with our own method OR we modify how we are communicating to meet the other person’s needs.
Problem. With God we never can reach that second step. We get no feedback if we are effectively communicating with God, or if he is effectively communicating with us. We are perpetually on the first step—that of presuming God must communicate in the same way we do.
societyvs: We have 66 books compiled – which is more than enough for one lifetime of reading and evaluating for any ardent student. Heck even the 29 about the Christ can take a lifetime of study.
Why only those 66 books? What about the other Christian writings? And what is the closest we can get to the original inspired writings? Various manuscripts change one (1) Greek letter in 1 Thess. 2:7, which could render the verse, “we were babes among you” or “we were gentle among you.” Which Greek letter is the closest to the original inspired word?
Part of the intellectual study was attempting to come up with a method to determine what is inspired and what is not. A simple question with an extremely impossible answer: “Give a string of letters called X, by what method do we determine X is inspired?”
societyvs: Another point of view is this: Maybe some do not audibly ‘hear the words of God’ but if Moses could neither look upon God (for fear of death – Isaiah has a same scenario happen to him) – what makes me so bold to think the audible voice of God will be any different?
Samuel seemed to live through the experience with YHWH. 1 Sam. 3:2-14
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
“(And, I might note, if you hold Acts as history, God DID give Saul/Paul an audible voice to communicate to him. If you want something from the gospels/apostles writing. *wink*)” (Dagoods)
And what from Acts scripture about an event (singular) that happened to Paul makes it the norm? I think it was audible but there exists no actual ‘rule of thumb’ about audible all the time.
“Why? Isn’t God bigger than that? Although for me, personally, I was not actually expecting an audible voice, on the other hand, among 6 Billion other human beings, would it be that shocking to learn there was another person who did?” (Dagoods)
Is God bigger than that? The real question for me is the opposite – is God smaller than that – to always speak audibly – in human language?
I wouldn’t be shocked at all if someone expects to hear the voice of God audibly – heck even if there were millions in that category – does it make it so? In all honesty, I have heard the ‘voice of God’ or possibly the ‘voice of an angel’ – a voice that unbelievably came to me as a ‘whisper’. Did I require such? No – it kinda just happened. So lump me in that category too.
“If another person told you, societyvs, that they expected an audible voice, or a vision, or a miracle—is your God big enough to do that? Or is it limited to only communicate the same way you expect?” (Dagoods)
I do not put anything past God nor do I believe in ‘testing’ that limit (which is a value Jesus taught) – which the question is asking. So the question asks me to break a teaching of a rabbi I look up to – this is inherently the first problem with the line of reasoning (since their is a reason for the particular teaching).
Why would God think as I do or communicate as I do alone? Billions of people have faith in God – I am guessing their experiences speak otherwise – I only see part of the whole equation (my experience) – but I am guessing to a Chinese, Brazilian, or Pakistani God relates in a way they know – which means multi-dimensional and multi-facets of knowing about God (I can’t see a single person exhausting all avenues on this issue). I never even mentioned senses.
“Problem. With God we never can reach that second step. We get no feedback if we are effectively communicating with God, or if he is effectively communicating with us. We are perpetually on the first step—that of presuming God must communicate in the same way we do.” (Dagoods)
I come from a realm where the books are the words of God – or written down for others to read. How is that I should figure this is a one way street exactly? This communicating with the texts, life experiences, and making them personable…does God have to communicate in a pre-set way (as a pre-requisite) in order for my beliefs to find validity? If so, where, how, when, what way, and why? Is audible the only way?
The second step seems to be understanding God – this communication back to us (feedback). Jesus seems to lay down teachings about this understanding in relations to ‘doing’ (or accepting values to live upon). I have been to the 2nd step a lot of times in that sense of communication – and this with the texts the Hebrews placed out there for us to read. But if God has to communicate a certain way then this all makes sense – we might not a hear a thing whatsoever – ignoring all aspects of communication.
“Part of the intellectual study was attempting to come up with a method to determine what is inspired and what is not. A simple question with an extremely impossible answer: “Give a string of letters called X, by what method do we determine X is inspired?”” (Dagoods)
Why is inspiration in the string of letters (although I find language somewhat inspired)? Isn’t the inspiration in the ideals/values? The living of those ideals/values in life experiences creates it’s own type of inspiration (which sometimes passes on from one to another). I think the inspiration is there in the values – not so much a string of letters – since the letter(s) themselves hold no value within and amongst themselves.
King Jr. inspired me. Gandhi inspired me. The letters c, h, r, i, s, t do not. String them together and they still don’t. Tell me a story about a person and you might have something. I have neither spoken to King Jr. and Gandhi (in person) yet the inspiration of their lives speaks to my being (mainly their actions). I admire King and Gandhi for their ‘actions’ in the face of resistance and bigotry – I don’t need their books for that. Oddly enough, both of them pay some homage to the sermon on the mount also (someone they did not know in communication yet they acted upon it).
But I am raising points which doesn’t mean I am right in this idea. It’s an idea – a search for the ‘truth’ in the endeavor – reaching for it but not meaning I have accessed it. But I keep reaching.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
DagoodS sez:
“But that is not “faith.” That is “trust” based upon experience.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Faith is trust based on experience. Faith based on anything else is just stubbornness or worse, arrogance. Believing that God will do what you want him to do is (excuse me, please, if I am being harsh – I too have tried this one) naive.
Believing that God will do what he said he would do, based on the fact that he is the kind of God who can be trusted, is faith. Believing that what God does is good when it looks bad, based on the fact that he is good, is faith. But yes, you have to know that God is good and can be trusted.
Believing that God exists can put you in a place to have experience with God if he does exist, but it’s not faith.
DagoodS, your spin-off of the “Dad” analogy is a good one. I have tasted that pain. I have beat upon the chest of God, begging for affirmation. I eventually got it, not in the way I expected, but it was enough to explain my confusion and console my broken heart. I’m not dangling this in front of you – I know we all travel different roads. My experience is not a copy of yours – but I too have tasted the bitterness of silence from the One I sought.
However, my point in using that analogy was not the strength of my faith, it was the insignificance of my faith. My faith gets me in the car – but once I’m in, it’s up to my Dad to get me to the airport. If you call me on the way and totally destroy my faith in Dad… when I get out of the car, I’m going to be at the airport. What faith I kept or lost on the way is relevant only to my own comfort and understanding – not my arrival.
What I really meant to say here is that the Bible teaches that once I allow God to forgive my sin, it’s forgiven. Done. Doesn’t depend on what I do next. If I don’t believe he exists, I’m still forgiven. I have made my choice, and I’ve been bought back, from sin, by God. I belong to him once again. He’s the one responsible to keep his promises now. If I believe him, how happy I can be. If I don’t, that doesn’t negate his promise.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Marie sez:
“it is impossible for a lot of us to have faith in God without definite belief. At least for me, belief HAS to come first.”
I’m at a loss. This is precisely what I wanted to say. Sorry, it seems I have bungled it royally. Marie, I agree with this statement 100%. In fact, it was my point. Thank you!
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 am
societyvs,
I did not mean to imply that God must “always speak audibly – in human language.” (Although, humorously, not sure it would do God any good to speak in Dolphin, now would it?)
What I was saying was that since humans communicate in 1000’s of different ways, in order to make the other person understand, one would think their God could figure how to do so as well. Since one of the 1000’s of ways is “audible,” I would think, on occasion, we would run across people that would think so as well.
A personal note. I was raised Calvinistic Baptist Reformed Protestant. (You many put those words in any order you choose.) Having been raised as such, I believed that God only spoke through three mediums:
1) The Bible first, last and foremost;
2) General Revelation of the universe; and
3) Leading of the Holy Spirit.
The last was in the form of “closing doors” or “inward nudging” or “using gifts.” If someone told me that God spoke through a different writing, such as the Book of Mormon, or Qur’an, they were wrong. In my world God didn’t speak that way. If someone said God spoke through “tongues” or “visions” they were wrong. God didn’t speak that way.
In the process I referred to in my blog entry, I came to the point of desperately seeking God. And in that point, I also came to the realization that I had created a very small God, with very human limits. Who was I to say how God could communicate or not? To some level, it is a bit silly that we have humans telling other humans what a God can or cannot do.
If God wants to appear to Sam in a vision—am I in a position to tell Him he can’t? If God wants to appear to Jane by an audible voice—can I tell God, “No”? But that is exactly what I had done. I had to open my mind to the possibility that if I wanted to hear (or taste, or learn or sense or see, or know, or whatever term is appropriate) God, I needed to stop telling God how He can or cannot do it.
Now, if some person tells me that they require an audible voice from God to believe, rather than tell them, “NO! God cannot do it that way,” I figure if there was a God that desired to communicate to humans, He certainly could do so audibly, if that is what the person requires.
societyvs: And what from Acts scripture about an event (singular) that happened to Paul makes it the norm? I think it was audible but there exists no actual ‘rule of thumb’ about audible all the time.
Good question. (Again, I do not think, nor did I mean to imply that must be “audible all the time.”)
How many instances must something be recorded in the Bible for it to be “the norm”? Or, is it never the norm, simply by virtue of being recorded in the Bible?
Paul heard an audible voice. 1 Cor. 11:23, 2 Cor. 12:9, Acts. 22:7.
Peter heard an audible voice. Acts 11:7, Mark 9:7
If you accept the traditional authors of the Bible, the vast predominance of it was written by people who heard the audible voice of God , including Moses, David, Job, Solomon, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, most of the prophets, Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude.
It would seem God is quite capable of speaking in an audible voice. While there is no “rule of thumb,” true, it sure seemed to happen quite a bit!
societyvs: I do not put anything past God nor do I believe in ‘testing’ that limit (which is a value Jesus taught) – which the question is asking. So the question asks me to break a teaching of a rabbi I look up to – this is inherently the first problem with the line of reasoning (since their is a reason for the particular teaching).
Where did Jesus teach that?
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” Matt. 7:7-8
“And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.” John 14:13-14
“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.” John 15:7
See also John 16:19-33 (too long to quote)
“Test everything. Hold on to what is Good.” 1 Thess. 5:21
What I see is a Jesus being very open to the possibility of being questioned, and welcoming it.
societyvs: This communicating with the texts, life experiences, and making them personable…does God have to communicate in a pre-set way (as a pre-requisite) in order for my beliefs to find validity? If so, where, how, when, what way, and why? Is audible the only way?
Exactly! Why should God have to communicate in a certain way? Why should I have to say the right words, use just the right text, have the exact measurement of faith, think the proper thoughts, etc.!
Hence my question as to YOUR limitation to the 66 Books. (Presumably the Protestant Bible.)
Do you see what we, as humans have done?
Me: I asked God to communicate with me, and he didn’t.
Theist: You did it the wrong way.
Me: Then what do you propose?
Theist: Here are my limitations on what one must do to hear from God.
Me: O.K., I tried those, and still didn’t hear*
Theist: Then you must have done something wrong.
*When I say “hear” I mean as in “hear from,” it could be written, internal, audible, visual, a feeling, a thought, an idea, an argument, a book, a speech, etc.
We have created this awesome creature. A thing that can create atoms, and stars, and universe(s) and love and laughter and pain, and planets and butterflies and elephants and wondrous things. Then we place this awesome creature in a box. And tell other humans the only way that creature gets out is if we pull the right levers, push the right buttons, and perform the correct steps in a perfect pattern—then and ONLY then, the creature will spring out.
societyvs – I have pushed, poked, prodded, pulled, tugged, turned, twisted, tweaked and tightened every lever, knob, button, string and switch on that box in about every combination I can think of. And the next thing I will be told by a theist is that I should have left it alone…
It doesn’t matter what I do, or how I do it. It will always be wrong. Is that the God we have? One that demands we operate that box just so, in order for him to appear? Or do we have humans attempting to justify why God can’t seem to figure out how to communicate in a variety of ways, so they create a box. With levers, buttons and knobs.
societyvs: Why is inspiration in the string of letters (although I find language somewhat inspired)? Isn’t the inspiration in the ideals/values?
…King Jr. inspired me. Gandhi inspired me.
No, no, no. What method do we use to determine a set of writings is inspirED by God, not inspirING to humans?
It was your initial limitation to the 66 books that prompted the question. Are you know saying that it is more than just those 66 books?
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 am
“I figure if there was a God that desired to communicate to humans, He certainly could do so audibly, if that is what the person requires.” (Dagoods)
I agree 100%. I already mentioned I had a audible experience so I am guessing I can’t be alone on that. But for someone to expect to hear a ‘voice’ all the time as the norm – well – I think I find that both mis-guided and uninformed (and on some levels ridiculous).
“I do not put anything past God nor do I believe in ‘testing’ that limit (which is a value Jesus taught) – which the question is asking…Where did Jesus teach that?” (SVS/Dagoods)
The problem here is a confusion of 2 ideas. You mention a bunch of scriptures about ‘asking’ God and call it ‘questioning’ – which is true about the scriptures you named, however the original question was “If another person told you, societyvs, that they expected an audible voice, or a vision, or a miracle—is your God big enough to do that?”. That’s a loaded question with the idea of ‘testing’ God for an answer/proof…which I stated Jesus taught as a value.
Jesus in Matt 4 is confronted by the devil – actually is asked to ‘test’ the abilities of God (even the strength of God’s promises). Jesus is asked to ‘jump off the temple’ since no harm will be-fall him. Jesus states ‘IT IS WRITTEN…you should not test God’. Jesus teaches a value in that passage and I am asked to respect that – and I do. So what should I do – disrespect my value for the idea someone has to have ‘proof’? It’s a conundrum.
But I have no problem with ‘asking questions’ to God – I actually encourage people to do so. I do think that in those ‘questions’ we have our role to play. We start with a question, we then seek some solution, and then we act upon what we know (until the process begins again)…which I think Jesus taught. I mean, we could just ask the question and leave it at that – but that makes no logical sense to do nothing with the idea (which can ony mean one thing – we really don’t care about an answer).
“It doesn’t matter what I do, or how I do it. It will always be wrong. Is that the God we have?” (Dagoods)
No, that’s the European system we have inherited and that’s where this whole problem really begins. I think the European perspective is widely held within Christian circles but the problem is the Jewish writer’s had another perspective altogether. These civilizations clash and one could almost say ‘Europeans hijacked the interpretations of the books’ from Constantine on (prominently in the Reformation).
So how does this change things? Every single view the Jewish people have about spirituality differs from Greco-Roman/European spirituality in some way (sometimes big – sometimes small). Add up the mass amount of differences and one could be reading through the lenses of warped interpretation and missing the point most of the time on almost every passage. Examples.
(1) The rich young ruler approached Jesus about ‘eternal life’ and what he needs to do. Jesus tells him to keep the law. Why? The Jewish people saw the law as a ‘gift from God’ and within it one can find ‘harmony with God’ – or ‘fulfillment in their life’. So Jesus telling him to keep the law was pointing the kid in the right direction (towards God). However Jesus asks him to sell everything. The rich young ruler leaves sad. Apparently, there were some laws/values he wasn’t following (ex: caring for the poor, mercy, etc). So he could not fully achieve ‘eternal life’ (abundant life).
(2) The idea behind finding ‘truth’ is a little different. Eurocentric views have truth as ’static’ (settled) while the Jewish mind-set has truth as ‘being revealed’ (almost as if constantly and via life experience). This changes one’s view on the spiritual life almost 100% if you start to figure you cannot know ‘truth’ unless you have lived it. One could say ‘Jesus is the truth’ – but is that a static thing that we automatically know? Or is this some process whereby we learn? And is that ‘truth’ about him as a person or about his character or about his teachings? This the openess the church is missing.
(3) Creation is a value to Jewish people, not a science. So to ask Rabbi’s questions about a 6 day creation is ludicrous – these aren’t questions they even consider the story in Genesis to be relating to humans. Basically, creation is a value – and that value is that all of creation is ‘good’ or ‘meaningful’.
(4) The Jewish value of ‘doing’ (value added) is always the point of the passages – not the intellectualization overhaul of the passages (European). This seems to be a huge one as I read any theology book about explaining God to bits and pieces (of which we think we have figured out and then changes next edition). Most of Jesus’ stories are about ‘doing’ and not about ‘analyzing’ – never does Jesus raise points about God being omniscient, all powerful, or all knowing – even if he did believe this he never mentions it (as it is unimportant to him or to a Jewish writer). What is important is ‘doing the will of God’ and by this we know we ‘understand God’.
(4) Finally, Jewish people see numbers as symbolism while Eurocentric views the numbers as ‘literal’ figures. Examples of 666 are found throughout the Tanakh – Solomon and Daniel both have this happen to them (or mention the number). The number(s) are not literal but symbolic – in the case of Solomon it was a tax (or something like that) and for Daniel it was worshipping a statue…in the end the numbers are used to say ‘this is wrong’ and not for literalness. One might even say the same about the Ark story.
So for me, God is not showing me ‘you are always wrong’ – the system has allowed telling you this due to a warped perspective and expressing hopes in values that aren’t being addressed in the writings.
And that’s the point of my de-conversion – losing all the shackles I brought with me to the writings (perspectives and viewpoints) and submitting myself to finding the ‘truth’ about what is really being said by the writers of ‘God’s word’ – or to borrow your phrase – that which ‘rings of truth’. I am seeking and finding, I am asking and getting answers, I am acting in ways that allow me not to have blinders on anymore (which were of my own volition and of my own conscience). I am continuing to de-convert from my interpretative short-comings – I am not there – I hope to never be – so I may continue to be taught/learn.