.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Banks, Harry
2012
|
What's Your Litmus Test?
Submitted: Jul 7, 2012
By Harry Banks
CHEMISTRY
The experiment is ridiculously easy. You take a pink strip of litmus paper and dip it in a solution. Wow! Pretty exciting, huh? If the paper turns blue, you know the solution is a base or alkaline solution. Some of your household alkali solutions are ammonia, bleach, baking soda, soap, and even milk.
Then there is the blue litmus paper. Dip it in an acid, like lemon juice, and it turns pink! Bakers use tartaric acid. Vinegar is also an acid, and of course your car battery’s sulfuric acid is a powerful form of household acid.
For a young high school chemistry student the experiment seemed… well… too simple… as a matter of fact… boring!
But gradually over time I have learned that it can be most helpful to test an unknown solution to see if it belongs to the alkali family or the acid family. Sometimes I even want to know the pH value, which is another way to measure a solution. Water has a pH of 7. Above 7 is a alkali, below 7 is an acid. And with Universal Indicator paper you can test a solution from pH 1 through 14, very acid to very alkali and in between.
Whoopdedo!
These days we sometimes use the phrase “litmus test” in the political arena to describe questions that clearly identify the political leanings of a candidate.
Ok, so I just wanted to give you some background for some of the language that showed up in the “shark tank” (Sabbath school class – see earlier blog).
EVALUATING EVANGELISM
The topic was evaluating evangelism. Hmmm… Since I expect the class to explore any lesson-related materials, adult quarterly materials, EGW supplements, books they find, youth materials, online sources… I decided to look up a few of my own as well.
At www.faithcommunitiestoday.org I found pages for the following:
FACTs on Growth 2010,
Attracting and Keeping Congregational Members,
Insights Into Compassionate Congregations,
Insights in to Congregational Conflict, (not sure how that got in there… just thought it looked interesting)
FACTs on Worship, and
Severnth-day Adventist Final Report.
Ok, so I found stuff… Printed the stuff out and took it to class.
Can you believe someone asked to take the pile of reports home to read after class!!!
But what happened to the litmus test?
OK, OK, I’ll get there… don’t get your blood in a boil!
SONS OF HELL
So the shock of the lesson was they had the nerve to include the comment from Jesus about converts becoming sons of Hell… Not only once but twice in the lesson… Hmm… They must have wanted us to notice…
You know that place where Jesus says,
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are"? (Matt 23:15, New International Version (©1984))
Well, in the class we got to thinking… OH NO… Thinking! Yep…
What is the real test of effective evangelism?
In the reports and some of the other outside research we noticed that the North American Division had added “number of persons attending church” as a weekly metric in addition to the traditional “members listed on the church books” and “baptisms.”
And then there is that bothersome “son of hell” reference… (we actually read all of the seven Woes…) So here come some of the other questions…
QUESTIONING QUESTIONS
What kind of metrics would the Pharisees have used to measure their evangelism? “Conversions”-- would they count like our “baptisms”? That line of questions could take on a life of its own.
Have you ever noticed that sometimes the question you ask shapes the answer? And have you noticed not all questions work as hard as others? Which makes me ask from time to time are we asking the right questions? And the really scary question… If I’m a blind leader like one of the Pharisees how would I ever know how to ask the right question?
So what should the real metrics be? Attendance? Member list? Baptisms?
I sometimes wonder what kind of spiritual ecology we are providing for new members? And do we know how to adequately describe a healthy environment?
So I asked the class… (OK, so finally here it comes…)
What is your litmus test for effective evangelism?
Yes, I have my own litmus test… But I’d like to talk about that later… I'd like to hear about your litmus test first, please!
If you were to create a question that would help us understand effective evangelism what would that question be?
YOUR TURN
OK, So welcome to the shark tank… What would your top question (or 3 questions) be? Take your time… Good questions are hard to come by… It once took me two years to come up the “The Question” for one of my projects.
What's your litmus test?
________________________
Join in the discussion:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
What I asked my class was, "What is 'success'?"
They had a lot to say, but basically, the consensus was that if you were certain the Holy Spirit was leading you to begin with, if you feel you've planted a seed, if you and/or the other person learned something, and if the conversation ended with as much or more love as it began with, then it was a success.
Jesus told us to do one thing and one thing alone: make disciples. Period. Count baptisms? No. Count attendance? Nope. So, why do we imagine the need for an evangelism litmus test, or that one could produce meaningful results?
God prohibited counting the Children of Israel and Jesus never told us to count the church, just to go and make disciples. Any pursuit of metrics is a pursuit of the illusion that such a measurement will be useful, meaningful or effective. We need to quit wasting our time on such pursuits and actually do what Jesus told us to do.
The root Greek word translated "disciple" means "follower." Unfortunately we have come to typically equate disciple (the process of discipling) as the infliction of punishment for misbehavior when it is actually a training process where a teacher is a living example to a follower to demonstrate how to to what is expected from them. Fortunately, Jesus gave us a model for doing that in how he worked with the disciples.
First, they spent time together, so over time they came to know each other intimately and for each to have total trust in the other. Discipleship it an ongoing process of instruction facilitated by relationship where those who are more mature and experienced in their walk with God give personal guidance to those who are newer in faith. For example, I am about to become a grandparent and am in a mentoring relationship with a young family in our church. The parents have become close friends and when they have parenting challenges they know they can call me to discuss it. Often I help them see outside the stress of the moment and am able to make suggestions for how to deal with a particular behavior in the children, or in their relationship with each other as spouses.
Second, Jesus taught his disciples to connect with the Holy Spirit and to use the power given to them to achieve their Gospel purposes. By doing that he led them into an equally trusting, yet far more empowering experience so they could do even greater work after he departed.
How should we do this in the church? 1) Stop counting baptisms. 2) Start nurturing the growth of believers as they mature from followers into leaders. 3) Shift our emphasis away from knowing facts about God to knowing God intimately so we know Him as the indwelling presence He promised. 4) Begin discovering and using the Holy Spirit power that God has promised is already in believers. 5) Encourage the starting and nurturing of ministries as guided by the Holy Spirit instead of trying to fill the list of church offices given in the Church Manual.
More than once in my early teenage years I sat in wide eyed wonder listening to some of our good SDA Evengelists. They were "doing evangelism". The effectiveness was measured in baptisms. Simple stuff back then.
The content of their messages was a well crafted selection of material designed to give the impression of a sound argument for the "good news" they were evangelising/sharing. I suspect this type of scenario as representing "evangelism" is deeply rooted in the SDA psyche. Making disciples, believers, followers etc with all the shades of meaning we can create around that or many other "sharing" events are so, so Adventist.
The original classical definition of the noun euangelion was a “reward for bringing a good message.” But the term also stood for the message itself, becoming a general term for the triumphant message from the battlefield. It was also used for joyous political proclaimations or for personal messages of good news. It was a technical term for “news of victory.”
There was also the concept of the Emporor's god-like status and the oracles and or good will he bestowed/declared on/to his subjects.
It is not hard to see the connection between Jesus "god-like" status among early believers, the gospel stories and his message of "good news". Thus "evangelism" enters the Christian vocabulary.
Now my point (or is it questions):
In the classical sense, "good" evangelism was sharing a message which was good news to the hearers. News that was vitally linked to their lives.
Among a growing number of global populations the majority of hearers are not responding to "our good news" in a way that suggests it is good news, let alone needed news.
Q 1. Why should the effectivness of evangelism not be evaluated by the response of the hearers? It most certainly was in the classical environment from which our terms come!
Q 2. If we are not sharing our message in such a way that the hearers hear it as "good news" are we kidding ourselves to call it "evangelism"?
Q 3. Should effective evangelism be identified by its "effect" on the hearers, or on its delivery of a particular package of "good news"? If the former, then the content can, could, or should be changed in such a way as to become "good news" to the greatest number of hearers possible. If the latter then the effect is of little or no consequence.
I totally agree with the objective of your questions. My church quit doing public evangelism six years ago and has never grown so fast as it has since. Jesus told us to go and make disciples. Discipling grows the kingdom.
Jesus never told us to hold public evangelistic crusades.
sin, guilt, and shame. And that becomes true as soon as you believe it.
That was his "good news" message to all who thought they were lost or enslaved or felt estranged.
Why is there such a need for embellishment?
If Jesus' "good news" can be stated as "you are free from enslavement by sin, guilt, and shame", experienced as soon as one believes, Christianity has a problem:
SDA's and Christians in general are perhaps the most vocal about sin, guilt and shame. I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to suggest that in fact much of our evangelism rides on our ability to make people aware that they are sinfull, guilty and should be ashamed - that they despately need a saviour etc. "We" then offer them the "good news" solution, from within which many then spend the rest of their lives trying to "feel" right with God after having had their consciences warped by a twisted sense of their "worthlessness" and "guilt" as "fallen" human beings.
There are those of us who reject this notion that we are "sinfull" "guilty" "shamefull/fallen" and suggest that what we are is human and normal and should be celebrated with appreciation for life and nature from a context of respect for others. To have the respect, peace, sense of appreciation and freedom from guilt and shame that this offers is in fact "good news" which sounds a bit like the outcome of Jesus' good news when correctly understood!
Who are the real evangelists offering "good news" that best reflects and produces the result Jesus was offering?
Perhaps a good litmus test for evangelism is in fact whether it offers "good news" that actually does justice to Jesus' original and simple "good news" without all the embellishments.
for those who felt or feel condemned under the law and under a cloud of estrangement from God.
People who do not feel so condemned are not in need of being saved from that misperceived guilt
in the first place. Jesus' focal audience was the Jewish people of his time, and the good news was/is
about freedom from the traditional Jewish guilt--and now, presumably, from the extension of that
in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I know, you are not going to like my impression, but that's the way I see it.
We may use different words but it is the same root message expressed in the colors of our individual experience. Now, have you found an effective way to personally share that good news?
I suppose my way is just to advise to not be a slave to any tradition, and to be free and open and honest.
Perhaps this is best when done by example than in any other way.
Wishing you well.
I'm not sure who the "you" is that you feel won't like your impression. I personally think you are spot on. I think you are also correct that many readers here will not agree:)
Acts 4:12" Our evangelism has become more of teaching the fundamental beliefs ( how many are there now?) of Adventists, rather than a wholesale committment to Jesus. I have been an adventist all my life (72). I remember being terrified as a youngster that Jesus would come and I wouldn't be ready. But I sure learned the 2300 day prophecy. After many years, and times which the "CHURCH" would certainly have thrown me out, I have settled for Paul's statement on Mars hill. "I have determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.1 Cor 2:2" If we simply teach that, then He will cause us to grow in grace. It changes who and what you are and gives trust and hope. The more I study, I still have a hard time with some of the fundamentals, but I don't any longer have to understand, or even to do, at least by myself.
The gospel is the starting point. But runners don't stay at the starting line. It is doing what you are supposed to be doing and enjoying the rewards God gives for that effort along the say that grows us into the mature followers of Jesus that God intends for us to become.
I do not find anything fundamentally wrong with a list of fundamental beliefs if they are used as originally intended, which is to provide a concice presentation of basic teachings including a core list of texts supporting them. It is when people begin arguing about their viewpoints relating to those basic teachings that we can quickly and easily identify the people who are not growing as God designed. I pity them for allowing Satan to stagnate their spiritual growth. It was very relieving to me some years ago when I realized that God never asked me to be expert about all the fundamental beliefs, nor that any of them had to be a priority over others and the focus of my relationship with God. This freed me from the argument that used to consume me and allowed me to focus on the ministry God has given me. This reduced the 2300 days to an illustration showing how God is in control of world events and giving me a basis point for believing that He is guiding my life today.
It is one thing to know a list of fundamentals. It is quite another to grow above them into mature followers of God who are actively involved in ministries that are guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit. That has been such a wonderful and invigorating experience that I cannot imagine ever going back to the old focus.
Your improvisational variations on the “good news” theme are not at all scriptural.
Of course, I could be mistaken, and if so, please elaborate and explain why/how.
The good news of Jesus would more precisely be that by accepting Him and His grace by faith that you are free from enslavement by sin; and therefore guilt and shame. And that becomes true as soon as you by faith, claim Him as your personal Savior and Lord.
All who think that they are lost or enslaved or feel estranged need Him.
Let’s find common ground where we can: Jesus certainly did not come to the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
to me for exposition of truth about the mind of Jesus (what Jesus meant). How what I think relates to
scripture has little meaning, because I do not view scripture as authoritative.
The difference between pointing out that "one need not feel condemned by tradition" and telling
people that you are their only hope, is a substantial difference. As you say, scripture supports
that Jesus asserted both. In essence he said, You will not surely die, because I will save you.
And, yet, everyone he said that to actually did die--so he must have meant something else....
Why do you say you are you not a follower of Jesus? God is offering you the most wonderful gift you will ever find. Why would you not be seizing it with great joy?
(cross-posted from the other thread...seemed salient to me)
I think Joe puts it in a clean way (not that I do not beliebve you do not, William), without the usual baggage (but he does bring another I cannot carry, either!). I personally do not agree there is no Abba, or Jesus, but neither do I agree with some of the foregoing definitions, authoritative or not, interpreted for us. "Who told you you were naked" seems to be the first words of Dad, to the two kids in the shadow of the apple tree.
It seems, to me, that my attempts to sew up some figged-up knickers, and tirelessly polish the apple all stand in stark contrast to my understanding of Abba's unending mercy and everlasting grace.
If Joe's understanding brings him to live in grace and love towards all, perhaps he has chosen more honestly than Mr Pharisee who claims it, but does not live in mercy and grace-towards himself, or towards others.
Just as the sun and the rain fall on the wheat and the tares, perhaps in the final harvest, many will be surprised-and fruitless. I think there's a story in the book about just this thing, matter of fact, there seems to be a common meta-narrative all through it. If you (say you) believe Abba's character as well as, say Moses did, then ought you not live like that?
Is the God we claim so omniscient actually impotent to bring Joe, just another one of us weeds in this garden, into His harvest? Perhaps; I believe He can. And it may depend on how we other weeds try weed out, or change, the "Joes".
Do humans need "salvation" or "redemption?" If they need to be saved from anything it is from traditions
that manipulate them with false promises of paradise and threats of everlasting torment in the name of
a loving God. The "God" you speak of, I suspect, is one invented by humans, and the concept has been
used for millenia to exert power and control over individuals and groups. Such manipulation has been honed to a fine art. Of course, I recognize that my view is not the prevalent one here, but, you asked, so I am answering as honestly as I know how. Even so, I should add, that I have seized LIFE with considerable joy and enthusiasm, and I am quite pleased that I did not waste my life urging others to believe the unbelievable.
I appreciate the honesty in your answer. You illustrate an issue that many have struggled with in varying degrees through all time: finding the "real" God among all the clutter of what people have been claiming and teaching. I know I have had my own struggles in that arena. A few years ago I learned something that was enormously relieving for me: there are some topics and issues that I can neither understand or explain. The good news was that God wasn't holding me responsible for understanding them because He was far more interested in an intimate relationship with me where He could teach me more important things. Doing that has helped me embrace the ministry He has given me with both joy and growing understanding of Him.
Thanks for your comment. I also concluded that there is much more to know or explain than I can ever appreciate-- and that I do not HAVE to know or understand everything. I felt (and feel) God would
not hold me (or anyone) responsible for not knowing or understanding the incomprehensible.
He might well hold me responsible in some way for being cruel or harmful or doing disgusting acts, but that is not the way I wish to live my life anyway. I am capable of living a positive and productive life and of doing no deliberate harm. I'm glad to do that. It is not a matter of being saved through good works, it is a matter of living in reasonable harmony with the natural world.
Were the early Christians saved by affirming a multitude of doctrinal statements?
Did Paul teach the Investigative Judgment, the importance of sabbath observance, and all the accretions to the simple teaching? Was it not Christianity then?
If the world continues for another 2,000 years, just imagine the requirements of religious believers then. OTOH, imagine that there will no longer be believers in the supernatural as evidence of one's spirituality.
Wasn't it Augustine who was the first enthusiastic proponent of Original Sin? Was it initiated by his very profligate lifestyle before conversion--the typical great sinner who becomes the religious zealot? Sin was a central dominating feature of Judaism and the priests during the Exile wrote much of the Torah and the creation story in which they taught that sin began in Eden with a talking serpent; as likely a story as Pandora's Jar. All sorts of problems man faced were attributed to the woman who brought sin to Eden: misogyny began in the garden and has been a stained thread woven throughout the entire tapestry of the Bible.
Where would Judaism or Christianity be without sin? If someone listed all the
known sins since the beginning of history, there are not enough libraries to hold all the records. Christianity needs sin just as Tide needs dirty clothes. The perfect symbiotic relationship.
We have more in common than it appears. I’m not a theologian either; that’s why I welcome correction from Scripture.
However on more than one occasion you have stated your understanding of Jesus’ message; and I’ve been compelled to offer critique of it when it seemed somewhat askew. (I have been 'indoctrinated' that truth mixed with error is both dangerous and insidious.)
Frankly, I might have been more reluctant to do so had you expressed belief in God and in His Son Jesus. However, not believing gives you less license; at least as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps the main problem with believing that mankind is not universally in need of a Savior is that it implies self-sufficiency. Jesus’ message included the fact that without Him we can do nothing; that He is the vine and we are branches.
We have been utterly deluded once we believe that we do not need God.
no more right than anyone else to quote scripture, and perhaps a bit less, because I do not
have confidence in its veracity. And, as you say, probably less yet because I am not convinced
that people who claim to do so are actually worshipping the God of scripture, rather than the
scripture itself. I'm not so sure that there was a single Jesus, rather than several, merged into
one mythical and larger-than-life legend.
It might be a fact "that without him we can do nothing," or, it might be a fact that that was an
important part of his message. Whether that was really HIS message, or was merely attributed
to him, it does not ring true to me. Teaching that we are nothing and are helpless, rather than
that we were created to use our talents and hone our skills, seems inconsistent.
It seems to me that the usual concept of God and Jesus is far too bound up in the wishful thinking
of humans, and that those who claim to know or understand the mind of God are seriously
deluding themselves, and, often, misleading others.
Even though I am not a believer in God, I do not reject outright the possibility of God. I am very
skepticalof the validity of the God that I was taught about, believed in, and thought I had become
personally acqaintend with, while growing up SDA.
Perhaps I am confused and deluded. Feel free to believe that. Neither you nor I would be alone.
You might consider how empowering the scripture is that indicates that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
The Bible message is empowering and liberating.
Rebellion from God is a real thing. In my view, the enemy’s message is that no one is accountable to God. Therefore rebellion, i.e. sin, doesn’t really exist.
God’s message is that though sin is rebellion and causes separation and death, He has squashed the rebellion by way of the loving sacrifice of His only Son on behalf of all of the rebels.
As a result, the rebels are all accepted back when they accept His grace.
That sounds like a deal to me.
Someone once recommended that we think less (much) about sin and more about Jesus.
So, until someone can reasonably demonstrate why the Bible and or any of its generations of interpreters has ANY authority to declare that we are "fallen" as FACT: Anyone who claims we are fallen and sinful is subscribing to a faith statement. As Joe says, it is faith in a manmade, well polished set of ideas.
I rejoice in the freedom that came when I too rejected this notion that we are "sinfull" "guilty" "shamefull/fallen" and realized that all the observable evidence indicates that what we are is human and normal and should be celebrated with appreciation for life and nature from a context of respect for others.
It is enough of a faith statement for me to believe God Is in some way, but to impose such notions of sin and fallenness etc on someone or anyone based on that is an even greater faith statement. Is it "evangelism" (good news) to screw up someone's peace of mind with the potentially twisted views of behaviour we often present as Christians?
What a sensible, liberating, and wonderful expression! Accepting what one book wrote about the human condition as being a standard for everyone, everywhere, and all time, is a crushing burden to bear.
Philosophers have been writing about humans and the ethics of life and none, that I can recall, were so demoralizing and discouraging than the one as presented by Christians, using the Bible very selectively. Who needs that?
It's the old "bait-and-switch" method of sales: create a need, the more demanding the better; get the victim to fully appreciate his need; the offer him the "cure," which is acceping the only available remedy: accept the doctrines of my church and you will be safe (or saved).
I wish I could say “I’m shocked!” So, this isn’t about Adventism after all.
Too often Adventism in practice is not about John 3:16 or Luke 19:10. It should be, and at its best I believe it still is, but, like all of us, too often Adventism is not at its best.
Thank you for succinctness of your point Kevin. I'd add that saved, to what?
Go, love likewise. A religion that does not result in a changed man, capable of surprising love has failed, despite its logical defense of its right deeds or authoritative doctrines.
Luke 10:37 comes clearly to mind. Do we show this, even to those in our midst-r without the gates- with most divergent views and behaviors? We sadly fail, even amongst ourselves. How, then, can we honestly evangelize?
We are in total agreement about what Adventism, at its best, is and/or should be.
However if I correctly understand what they (“they” being, specifically, Chris, Elaine, and Joe) are saying, mankind is not now, nor ever has been lost. Therefore Jesus was on a meaningless, irrelevant mission. Which would mean that Christianity as a whole (not to mention Adventism) is meaningless.
Now, they can and will correct me if I have misinterpreted what they’re saying.
So, Stephen, what is your litmus test for your personal effectiveness in personal evangelism?
To say, somewhat sardonically i suppose, since they (J, E, C) do not ascribe to your personal interpretation, that they believe your belief is meaningless seems ridiculous. It seems (your personal evangelism) really is not working, so you create and foster another division.
Whether Joe believes/does not believe he, or you, or any other is lost (according the definition you ascribe it-and seemingly without trying understand his experiential definition) does in no wise imply (as he stated) he believes your belief is meaningless. Although, I sense the reciprocal is not true with respect of his belief/unbelief-and seems you wish to believe he believes it IS meaningless-what, so it justifies you wiping off your sandals? Do you ever try see other than in stark black/white? There are and/then realities, especially given eternity and infinity.
Your "total agreement statement"...well, lets just leave that packed up for now. Why does it seem you've tried create a false consensus before you built your argument? I do not mean to hammer at you personally, but I wonder why, to me, this sort of thinking seems endemic within my faith community. You have seemingly provide predictable and perfect foil, and, as iron sharpens iron...(unless one refuses) we might ALL reciprocally move in a direction towards a better knowing of God. In case you wonder why i approach this topic, let me just divulge that I have seen far too many people pushed away from the kingdom for deed and doctrine, when our common identity unites us. "I will not leave you orphans" is not only a literalism (since the spiritual umbilicus was severed in the shadow of the apple tree in an new garden), but also metaphoric. Its time we, peculiarly, unite as brothers, and embrace the "orphans and the widows". Perhaps our "lostness" or "sinfulness" is NOT deed and doctrine, but rather our disconnection from Daddy. I personally believe that the Royal command, the sanctuary, and the ruddy man as 'image of God in heaven' can all be super-imposed and a simpler, cleaner meaning emerges, without the illogic, the spiritual calisthenics, the lexiconic challenges, the cultures contortions, or the secret code-speak of lingo/jargon. Even a child...or, only a child can know, and will lead them. I do not know any child (let alone learned men and women with history in our shared faith community) who can know (even intellectually, but more importantly, in their hearts) -
Luke 23:34
Thanks for the clarification relative to Christianity being meaningless. It is of course quite true that “some humans have used these traditions as weapons to control and subject and browbeat and take advantage of other people [and that] like most human endeavors, religion can be constructive or destructive.”
The focus of our disagreement however is on the “lost-ness” of the human condition and mankind’s need for reconciliation with God. This was Jesus’ mission, according to Him.
As I have told you previously, I am appreciative of your honest and directness. No matter how it ‘appears,’ you are no more a rebel than I am. You probably realize, as I do, that this is not so much about us as individuals as it is about the ideas around which these discussions take place.
We agree that “our “lostness” or “sinfulness” is…our disconnection” from the Father; which inevitably results in disbelief, misdeeds and death.
Because we have become disconnected from the Father, Jesus intercedes for us and His earthly mission facilitates an at-one-ment and reconciliation. (At least that’s how I understand it.)
Of course Isaiah 59:2 speaks to this.
Prior to your suggesting that I, as one of a trio, believe Christianity is meaningless, I had written below that I believe Adventism and Christianity had a place. That is to say it is not meaningless. Please read more carefully what I am really saying.
This is a non-starter in Christian theology.
I made note earlier about the classical background to that term. Surely that must inform us with a sense of what the word means. It has to do obviously with the bringing of and content of good news.
As per Joe's point above, Jesus brought good news to the oppressed. Those oppressed by the crushing weight of the law and endless rounds of guilt and sacrifice. Without getting into what is right and wrong with what the Jesus stories contain: put it this way - he couched his message of freedom and peace in concepts and terms relevant to his hearers. Jews in bondage. Based on Joe's comments and the drift of my earlier points it is easy to see the possibility that effective evangelism today should bring good news.
Once again, may it be suggested that in this age where Christianity is best known for its focus on sin, guilt and shame (to which it then offers a solution) an "evanglist" who is trying to bring people a sense of worth, value, freedom may well confront these elements of Christianity just as Jesus did the similar elements within Judaism of his day.
This is not to say that Christianity nor Adventism have no place. I'm sure they do, but I am also very sure that they must undergo a radical simplification and parring down to the essence of what it means to be free from the law and all the sin, guilt, shame, remorse, struggle etc that we package it all up in. I believe do we do not preach good news. Full stop. Therefore, we don't actually have nor do evangelism.
Good news is that we are human, free to choose to live, love, respect and enjoy life. It will have its majestic moments; it will have its miserable moments. Let us not make it a burden in any way with the teachings of men.
It is as we draw closer to the Holy Spirit and become more willing to let Him guide and empower our lives that we understand better what it takes to fulfill Jesus' command to "go and make disciples." This brings us to tne only "litmus test" that I have found: Am I being effective at nurturing the growth of current believers and leading non-believers to become believers.
I don't think I'm suggesting being at peace with misery:) Though perhaps as an aside to my main point I would suggest we can endeavor to have peace in spite of it.
I am also a little unclear what the main drift is of your point re theosis.
This takes no special insight about a particuar religion. All those commenting here are more familiar with Christianity than other religions simply because of our birth--the heritage received from our parents. So, it is more acceptable and "reasonable" than Buddhism, Hinduism and the other world's great religions.
But, like all those non-Christian religions, they also have many divisions and people may move from one or the other unless in Islam where tribal affinity may be even more important.
Humans want peace, despite our apparent love of warfare. If religion becomes to bellicose, it seems no longer worthy of our time to maintain a faith with its requirements and beliefs. By maturity, we should have reached and developed our own compass and whether it includes organized institutional religion, or a belief that answers our needs, we are all seeking peace and love--the basic human emotional needs.
But nothing says we have to agree on everything.
Is it your opinion that those who are sociopathic, or psychopathic, or cruel, or even hateful, or untrustworthy are likewise situated? Have they no transformational need to you?
You seem to rather cavalierly dismiss all those who do not adopt the belief that is so satisfying for you. To conclude that we believe that Jesus is meaningless because we cannot declare that we are "lost" is the attitude that is most disturbing and has driven many from the efforts to make converts to Christianity.
Christianity is a much larger tent than you describe. There are millions of Christians who would never deny God or Jesus, but feel that living by the principles given define what a Christian should be. All the different denominations may make their own requirements but remember, millions would answer a survey that they are Christians but do not attend a church of any denomination. Are you dismissing them as not being Christians?
I made a quite blunt statement earlier. Here it is:
"There is absolutely NOTHING outside of the Bible to illustrate, demonstrate, suggest, prove, or otherwise cause us to entertain the thought that humanity is "fallen" from any originally better moral level or plane. NOTHING. In fact all of nature suggests the opposite.
So, until someone can reasonably demonstrate why the Bible and or any of its generations of interpreters has ANY authority to declare that we are "fallen" as FACT:...."
Notice the word "until" which I have now placed in bold? You have made several comments above which in principle respond to the direction of my comments as if they were invalid. Can I ask you: please - stop responding with statements suggesting how wrong I am until you have at least made an effort to demonstate that the Bible has the authority you are using to declare me wrong.
Unless you wish to suprise me, I think the reason you do not is that you cannot. There is no basis in objective reasoning for the position you have taken.
Please understand. I would be the first to rejoice if there is such evidence.
While you are at it you may also like to suggest some objective data from nature/humanity which indicate that we are indeed "fallen" from some higher/better plane. Again, I would be glad to see it, but will not be holding my breath.
So....instead of criticizing - respond to my arguments....please.
I'm not sure I read Nathan's comment.
I'm also not sure I agree with the conclusion you suggest from it. The first questions that stand like red flags in front of me as I read your assessment/point are these:
1. "best arguement"? On what basis, how so, why? etc.
2. "do so from experience, not rational argument". Why? Again, on what basis? What rational arguement do they "use" to determine this is indeed the best way? If there is no rational argument for such a stance re "fallenness", then why not do the same for any other "belief" "idea" "idiosynratic penchant" that I may choose to have or hold just because of who I am or where I was born?
3. I happen to believe God Is, and as you allude to, I don't have a shred of objective evidence to demostrate that. Therefore, I am not going to criticize, condemn, ridicule or otherwise mock someone who holds a different postion. I am most certainly not going to ridicule someone who may well hold up a large amount of objective evidence to the contrary of my opinion - as is the case with the existence of God and particularly with the "fallenness" of man. That to me is utterly hypocritical.
Stephen is perhaps the best (or is that the worst) here at presenting these dependant clause arguments. All on the surface very "rational". and "logical", yet when it comes to points like I made above (and also as many others do) there is no rational objective evidence forthcoming. Just criticism. Real discussion cannot take place in such an enrivonment I fear.
Are you [expletive] kidding me? Do you people ever even listen to yourselves? Logic and reason "aren't always the best argument" for reality? Are you ******* serious?
Your ability to reason is what sets you apart from animals, Kevin. This sort of thinking is nothing less than a disgrace to the human species.
Honestly, I have been focusing more on Joe’s comments relative to the fallen nature of man and confess to not having read yours as I normally would. As a result, my responses on this topic have primarily been addressed to him.
We agree that the Bible is the source of information about the fallen nature of man and that I cannot prove the authority of the Bible to you.
Jesus is why the Bible is authoritative. One has to deny Him as Lord in order to deny the Bible’s authority. If He was God, and if He believed the Scriptures, the case is closed.
mmm. "if He was God, and if He believed the Scriptures..."
You know, I was shocked just today to discover that there is more historical data validating the literal existence of Mohammed than there is (non Biblical) historical data validating the existence of Jesus! I guess it would be unfair of me to point out that yet again your last parapraph is one of your classic dependant clause arguments.
Anyway. I will also rest the case, but please, just maybe on the basis that so much of your position is based on personal subjective decisions to believe what you do - give those of us who insist on a little more logical validating evidence a break. We are simply just trying to address the evidence and find ways of dealing with the issues it so often presents. Taking a postion you do I suspect would in fact be a lot easier.
Which one of us is being illogical?
Whether such a person did or did not believe Jesus was or was not a historical person is not relevant to the answer to the above question. If the essence of the teachings has a place in and contributes to a person's philosophy of life and how they live it - then I would not object to them being called or calling themselves a Christian. btw...don't answer, but are you a democrat? a Republican? or a Tea Party? or something else? How so? I'm sure you would identify yourself as whatever you do on the basis that you subscribe to a particular set of views, understandings, philosophies etc.
Your objection to me calling myself a Christian is (I suspect) that you have a much larger list of things I should subscribe to in order to qualify.
That certainly sounds like ‘works’ to me. Christianity is all about faith in Jesus. While "faith without works is dead," one must simply confess Jesus. Romans 10: 9-13 (and the first question in verse 14).
Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to you calling/considering yourself a Christian. It is not for me to say. It is not my job to judge.
I think Timo's comment below, especially the last sentence is good enough reply to your point. Also keep in mind that the concept of "works" is only relevant in the context of one trying to "earn" salvation, and that may only be relevent in the context of "fallen" etc.
Re belief: Paul seemed to have an opinion that the "gentiles" who do right thing without "belief" were pretty much right with God anyway, so I suspect that point is also mute.
Timo’s point is likewise related to works. We aren’t good, no matter what we do. All of our righteousness is worthless.
It isn’t about us. We can only recognize our need for Him and believe on Him; that’s all. Anything else—everything else—be it love or any other fruit of the Spirit, comes from that.
Few of us totally believe, least of all me. All we can say is “Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
The bottom line is undoubtedly Hebrews 11:6.
Works is nothing to do with anything! Working for what? Salvation perhaps? If man is not "fallen" then from what is there any need of "salvation"? Hence works are a meaningless diversion.
But do you not believe that some individuals have a transformational need; a need for mind renewal?
Elaine,
I do not deny that there are Christians who do not belong to a particular church or denomination. But I do believe that Christianity, like any other religion has basic tenets without which it ceases to be a religion, by definition.
Every person who loves other people and seeks to treat others as they wish to be treated is not necessarily Christian. They may be Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or atheist, or agnostic, or theist.
You cannot be both Christian and atheist. There is a reason for this Elaine.
Ayup. Sort of like you cannot be both crazy and sane.
Would Hebrews 11:6 and/or John 14:6 have any bearing on his opinion at all?
Perhaps, perhaps not, Stephen. Seems two definitions; the second is perhaps a functionally defined one.
see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Craig Groeschel, author of "The Christian Atheist" writes: Christians and Christian Atheists everywhere will be nodding their heads as they are challenged to take their own honest moment and ask the question: am I putting my whole faith in God but still living as if everything was up to me?
If I read Mathew 7:23 correctly, I see this group addressed. "Though you call yourselves Christians, I did not know you". What they claimed-intimacy with Christ-is just what He repudiates, and with a certain scornful dignity. "Our acquaintance was not broken off-there never was any." In other words, functionally denied God; their testimony was false, of a God who was not. Functional atheism, despite their proud attestations.
If I reject that there is a God-as someone represents him to be-and they treat me less than if I ascribed to their view, can such a one-honestly-claim to be Christian, and love their enemy? Despite they claim they "love me", but in fact deride, shun, marginalize, disenfranchise?
I believe we need to be very cautious of how we represent our beliefs in God, expressed in the manner of our living, which in effect will ajudge us by same measure. Not by our logic, reason, words, arguments, proof texts, quotes, or syllogisms, but how we really lived. Is there any one of us that is guileless? I've sometimes wondered, perhaps the honesty of a man who questions the existence of a God-but who lives a respectful life espousing the virtues-is greater than the honesty of many claiming a seat at the feast already, jostling and fighting amongst themselves as if there were limited availability and insufficient fare.
I do not believe that any religion has the cure for psychopathology. Even so, some kinds of religion can probably benefit mental health for some people. For others, it may foster delusional thinking. How harmful that is surely varies.
It is also clear that psychiatry and psychology have some effective treatments, but even their best efforts often do not relieve either the symptoms of psychopathology or its causes.
I'm confident that you and I, Stephen, both want the best for people. Our perspectives on how to help that happen differ, but maybe that is a good thing. Perhaps, between us, we address the needs of more of the general population than either of us could do alone (or with the assistance of similarly inclined colleagues).
I very much like and agree with what you said above, that not everyone who loves people and seeks to treat them as they wish to be treated is Christian. That is an important insight and it certainly aligns with my personal experience around the world.
"There is absolutely NOTHING outside of the Bible to illustrate, demonstrate, suggest, prove, or otherwise cause us to entertain the thought that humanity is "fallen" from any originally better moral level or plane. NOTHING. In fact all of nature suggests the opposite.
Ask any well trained Christian what it means that humanity is "fallen" and that is it. I don't understand that you see any ambiguity in my use of the term?
*grabs popcorn*
Tim is spot on. Please, if you do not know what "fallen" means in the context of discussion about humanity - go check out the topic in virtually any bible study set offered by SDA's or many Christians and you will have the answer.
The moment I give you "my" definition you will find something wrong with it and we will set off on another wasted journey if trivia.
Seems to me such a question serves well the purpose of avoiding the real strength of the points I have made. Perhaps put your effort into answering those instead of counter questioning with a red herring.
But the original statement expressed the idea that "humanity" would understand
their "fallen" state cannot be evidenced.
How would the native Americans or the Mayans or many aboriginal people realized their "fallen state" that simply came to them through their reasoning abilities?
Do Buddhists feel they are "fallen"? This is, as far as I know, a distinctly Christian doctrine and it must be taught; it is not something innate that humans were born with. Please show how someone is born with knowledge of their "fallen" state.
I'm not an atheist, and I don't really know for sure how they would answer your question. I suspect it is a bit like me asking if you see any problem with the nature of your cat or dog?
Cats are cats and dogs are dogs - what is it about each that makes them what they are? They are what they are. Each individual will have its personality, but within their context each is what it means to be a cat or dog. Are there "problems" with their natures?! Silly question really I feel.
Humans are humans, each with their personality, but each is what it means to be human!
“Also keep in mind that the concept of ‘works’ is only relevant in the context of one trying to ‘earn’ salvation, and that may only be relevent in the context of ‘fallen’ etc.
“Works is nothing to do with anything! Working for what? Salvation perhaps? If man is not ‘fallen’ then from what is there any need of ‘salvation’? Hence works are a meaningless diversion.”
Let me get this straight Chris (and we may need help from others in case there is a communication gap), your position is that we are not now, nor ever have been in need of salvation, because we are not now, nor ever have been in any condition from which we need to be saved; correct?
Therefore the concept of “'works' are a meaningless diversion,” and the concept of grace is likewise a meaningless diversion, because the concept of salvation is a meaningless diversion.
I sure hope someone else is reading this, because I want to stay on track with this line of reasoning and I do not want to, in any way, misrepresent or misunderstand your position, Chris.
I have tried to use your exact words, in context, in an attempt to gain a precise understanding of your position.
Have I summarized it, relative to a fallen state and salvation; Yes or No?
You did exactly what I expected: throw your arms up in horror and set out on a new tangent.
Let me get this to you straight. I am not here to give you every detail of what the implications may or may not be of some of the bigggg questions you and I both face if we admit where science is leading us today.
I don't have all the #***%#### answers!!! but at least I have the guts to ask some of the questions and attempt to give my suggestions of what the outcomes may be or some possible positions.
YOU tell me. If man IS NOT fallen in the usual sense we Christians believe What would the implications be? For heavens' sake "my postion" this and that etc blah blah! I am trying to find answers that can do justice to a belief in God and the "fact" that this world and life upon it are OLDDDD and appear to have come to that place through a long process.
I would hazzard a guess that many more qualified than I attend AT but keep their mouths shut re the kind of points I make PRECISELY because of the type of response you have come back with.
You answer my question: What would the theoligical outcome be if we are NOT FALLEN? ie Would it be true that we are not now, nor ever have been in need of salvation, because we are not now, nor ever have been in any condition from which we need to be saved?
I am looking to pursue this exactly. I most definitely do not wish to set out on a new tangent, Chris.
I wanted to be sure that did not misrepresent or misunderstand what you’ve said.
I do not have all of the answers either; but I would think that those who have the guts to ask questions also have the guts to address/face the implications of both the questions they ask and of the answers they find.
Of course the implication of your position—that ‘works’ (and perhaps/presumably ‘grace’) are only relevant in the context of ‘salvation,’ and that salvation is only relevant in the context of a ‘fallen’ condition; and since (you hold that) we are not, nor ever have been, in a ‘fallen’ condition, we therefore have no need for salvation—is that salvation is, in fact, meaningless.
If you want a position I am fairly settled on, but as with anything open to revision, below is a re paste of my point from earlier.
It seems pretty obvious I guess that there are implications to this position, but I don't have all the loose ends clarified in my own mind yet.
I rejoice in the freedom that came when I too rejected this notion that we are "sinfull" "guilty" "shamefull/fallen" and realized that all the observable evidence indicates that what we are is human and normal and should be celebrated with appreciation for life and nature from a context of respect for others.
It’s easy to misunderstand each other in this format; and it’s easy to overlook something that has been previously written.
I have not asked you to provide “a conclusive/concluded position” Chris, because you had already provided one. I was attempting to make sure that I had properly recited, reiterated and represented what you had said.
That’s why I asked “Yes or No.”
The implication, Chris, of what you have stated with regard to ‘works’ (and thus its counterpart) and ‘salvation,’ relative to mankind’s un-fallen condition (your position), is that salvation is actually “irrelevant”—because humans haven’t fallen. Since there is no need for salvation, there is not now, nor ever been a need for a Savior of mankind.
This is an untenable position for Christians/Christianity.
Indeed, Chris. "Who told you you ought to be ashamed of yourselves" echoes from the very roots of the apple trees shadow. Grace covered their shame-it seems to me we delight in shaming others, because we ourselves do not understand and accept it in a genuine transformational and heartfelt way (because it is not a logic, left-brain equation-perhaps which is why there are so many physical, tangible, palpable ways God instructs man. Seems we do not hear with our hearts, but only our minds-and then we argue the form of these conditions and ritual). This very propensity of humanity doing the articles of worship as their culture interprets it, and acquiring the knowledge intellectually which is espoused by culture as "truth" but failing to live in the grace-imbuing way it should call us to is perhaps precisely what works against us in evangelism, retention of new converts, and more importantly, retention of our children. It's not so much about bringing them to "the church" but rather that we bring "the church" to the world wherever we are in it.
I certainly believe man was made for so much more than the short dash-between-the-dates on our headstones, and "salvation" is so much more than we can even know.
I wonder how cultures prior to calvary who were not given the OT msg, and present people(s) today who do not "know Jesus" will be judged. Is not "knowing Jesus" FAR more than the western image we attach to the word itself? Is "knowing Jesus" far more?
I understand that we’re somewhat locked into stereotyping each other and each other’s views of the world, which is undoubtedly human; but this is not a discussion about culture, conditions and ritual, but about grace.
Adam and Eve were not told that they were naked; they saw that they were naked with the knowledge they had obtained by way of disobedience to God. It was their innocence that had been their covering, and guilt made them ashamed.
The “good news” is that a plan had been formed whereby they were delivered. Grace had already been extended to them.
We can bring this truth to where we are, and of course we must. We are flawed, but we are saved; when we believe in Him who saves.
This grace will save us and by faith it will also save our children.
I'm sorry, maybe you can help me understand here -- if grace is not human, why is it that I employ grace in dealing with people on a regular basis? If grace isn't human, is love not human either? If so, why do I (and billions of other non-believers) know how to love?
Stephen, Genesis 3:11 clearly has God asking the ruddy man and his apple-pickin' accomplice "who told you you were naked". You've given some assumptions following about grace, the mind, and how we present it. If it is not through each of our cultural filters, then how? If it is not through the formal rituals given as fore-types, how? How would you assume they knew they were naked when they had no example in nature (their scripture)of clothing, and no concept of it (logically)?
Tim, I'm as guilty as anyone in failing to give grace-even on these boards-to people who just don't "get it". And so-I give, and withold- grace, not by some divine fiat, but by choice. Same with love.
Timo, of course, and same with me -- occasionally flipping out in the face of peoples' humanity is itself part of being human. But if I'm interpreting Stephen's post correctly (and I may not be), he seems to suggest that grace, in his words, is for some reason not human, but 'divine.' That isn't making sense to me. People from all walks of life show grace all the time, albeit some more than others, so I'm looking for a little clarification.
Oh yeah, we love those who love us, or from whom we get something; and we are gracious out of politeness. But unconditional love is what God IS.
Timo,
If you would, read Genesis 3:7-10.
What do you mean "we don't redeem, restore and reconcile"? We do those things all the time. We wrong others and go out of our way to make it up to them, and those who have been wronged forgive and restore their relationships with others and are thereby reconciled. So I don't understand what you're trying to communicate.
Further, unconditional love is very much a human thing, though perhaps more rare and precious than many other facets of our humanity. I find the suggestion to the contrary strange. Unconditional love is demonstrated daily the entire world over, by people from all cultures and all walks of life. We don't all only love those from whom we "get something." At least, I don't -- should I start considering the possibility that I might be Jesus reborn? :P
In more succinct terms, you seem to want to extricate from humanity our very human virtues while leaving behind our very human failings. I can't jump on board with that -- my experiences around the world have demonstrated to me that both are endemic to the human condition. To call yourself only "evil" and attribute "goodness" to some externality is to denigrate and betray yourself. Though Chrisitanity might not teach it and many of its followers may not comprehend it, you do have goodness in you. You are not 'fallen.' You are simply human.
Not to put any words in Chris' mouth, but just for myself (and maybe others who might be called "naturalists"), it is difficult to see what we are being saved from, and what we are to be saved to.
I chuckled quite out loud, Joe! Thanks for the "naturalist" comment. My mind saw "spiritual naturist",
sans the sartorial fig garb.
I sense the 'saving from' is mortality-and the 'saving to' is unity in unimaginable ways. From chronos to kairos. Watching the will to live in all living things, and aware of the wonderment of life in all its intricacies strongly shouts to me we were made for so much more than death. Survival is a powerful force...
Your conclusion is fallacious, Timo -- truly the survival instinct is among the most powerful and pervasive amongst all life on Earth, but realize that it would of course be selected for evolutionarily. That such an instinct exists is by no means evidence that we were, quote, "made for so much more than death." The thought is a pleasant platitude at best.
Well said, Joe
One must first feel he is lost before looking for a way out. Who convinced him that he was lost? Does a small child feel "lost" about a future salvation? How could he even know that is his condition unless he was taught that he was lost?
It is not something that is universally accepted by just being human. But once it is accepted, then all sorts of "cures" and "remedies" can be touted and sold. But first it must be believed, and that is the "good news" that Christianity is to bring to the world? There's good news and there's bad news. Do you want the bad news first? It's this: you're inevitably and eternally lost. The good news: if you do this, you will no longer be lost. Guess which Christians must sell first?
Learning to love and appreciate my own humanity was such an alien concept to me even after leaving the church that it's no wonder those who're still indoctrinated are confused by the very notion.
You may be that rare individual full of unconditional “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” and therefore are gracious to everyone. I am not.
Unfortunately, that which comes naturally for me are other things that I would quite frankly prefer very much not to mention.
You say that you have found all of these things—positive and otherwise—endemic in all human beings. I have not.
I have observed that selfishness and self-serving and self-centeredness, and self indulgence and self preservation are endemic to the human condition.
The unconditional love and joy and peace, etc. that I have noticed and experienced and from which I have benefitted (and occasionally hopefully demonstrated) is from the Creator.
I see much more cruelty and oppression and hatred and violence and meanness than I do unconditional, unselfish love and grace.
However Tim, the unconditional and selfless love, mercy, and grace that I have experienced and witnessed are enough for me to personally know from whence it has its origin; and is cause for great appreciation/celebration.
You seem to have misread my post. I'm not bloody Mother Theresa -- in fact, most of my friends would describe me as "a bit of a bastard." Lovingly, of course. :) I'm up to my ears in flaws and failings -- look at my penchant for lashing out at people here, for example -- but I'm also very capable, just as you are whether you realize it or not, of grace and unconditional love. Virtues and flaws are not a zero sum game.
You say that you have found all of these things—positive and otherwise—endemic in all human beings. I have not. I have observed that selfishness and self-serving and self-centeredness, and self indulgence and self preservation are endemic to the human condition.
I'm sorry to hear that. While those things are certainly endemic to the human condition (and I've seen them as well to great extent), it must be a dark perception of reality to see only human failings, and I hope for your sake that you eventually see the goodness that I've encountered during my travels and that I encounter presently in my daily life. I feel lucky in that in my 32 years, I've had a lot of rare opportunities, including living in several foreign countries and extensive interaction with people of foreign cultures (my job in the army consisted largely of talking to people). I've seen the dark underbelly of humanity so atrocious that I wouldn't share it with my best friend over a bottle of whiskey. But I've also seen, as Doctorf mentioned in his post (different thread, perhaps -- I'm not really keeping track at this point since we're all over the place in these threads) incredible feats of human bravery, altruism and love, where people -- soldiers, civilians and locals alike -- have rushed to the aid of strangers with no regard for their own lives. I've seen the strong comfort the weak, mercy, love and kindness extended to strangers by strangers all over the world. I echo Chris's post down the thread that subjective experience is by no means demonstrative of reality, and as a student of psychology, I must concede that, but that I've seen virtue so consistently in spite of my own failings and deep-seated cynicism, coupled with my extensive training as an investigator, lends weight to the notion that such virtue truly exists.
The unconditional love and joy and peace, etc. that I have noticed and experienced and from which I have benefitted (and occasionally hopefully demonstrated) is from the Creator.
No, the unconditional love, joy and peace that you've noticed and experienced and from which you've benefitted are that which you choose to ascribe to some "Creator," since you have no evidence that directly assigns such a thing. Since I don't think you're talking about antelope or beavers, I assume the unconditional love, joy and peace that you mention has come through your interaction with other people. That you choose to ascribe their virtue to some external, mystical force is on you, but the fact is that they were demonstrated to you by your fellow human beings.
Let me stipulate that any of us can behave beautifully, and any of us can behave atrociously; and this is also common to humans all over the world.
Let me also stipulate that this has been true since there have been humans.
If however, in your 32 years you have observed that the good and the bad in mankind is practically a push, then that is, of course, on you.
I would contend that occasional seemingly instinctive flashes of selfless heroism and altruistic benevolence are the exceptional evidences of God’s image.
Keep in mind that everyone has not been as fortunate as you; and that there have been countless innocent victims of war, deprivation, starvation, crime, and cruelty. Justice is quite rare in human societies. Where it exists it is often purchased. Man is unique in his ability and willingness to contemplate and plan evil. Egoism is the rule, altruism the exception.
No one can prove to you that this all results from rebellion from God; or that there is a spiritual conflict between good and evil, love and hate, because you are free to not believe it.
No one can prove the (self-evident proposition) that human minds and human kind are unique—because we are uniquely made in God’s image—because we’re free to reject it.
You may credit God for your kind acts, but let others speak for themselves. Many demonstrate love and compassion who do not claim to even believe in a god. Are there kind acts dismissed? What matters who gets the credit?
Should I answer you as a believer, who cites the Bible and the New Testament particularly, or as an agnostic?
If as the former, then how might you interpret 1 John 4:7-21 in the context of your statement that many who do not believe in God demonstrate love?
If as the latter I would suggest that the image of God in man is flashed in all acts of selflessness. However I cannot judge who truly loves.
You will recall this comment from above: "There is absolutely NOTHING outside of the Bible to .... otherwise cause us to entertain the thought that humanity is "fallen" from any originally better moral level or plane. ...In fact all of nature suggests the opposite.
So, until someone can reasonably demonstrate why the Bible and or any of its generations of interpreters has ANY authority to declare that we are "fallen" as FACT: Anyone who claims we are fallen and sinful is subscribing to a faith statement....."
I would be happy to change my perspective if the "until" can be met!!!
You responded with a statement of belief and that you could not prove the Bible's authority to me, but that Jesus believed it so it is. I'm still waiting for a sound argument that is not based on circular reasoning.
Kevin suggested Nate's idea that experience was a fair way to go etc. I have a close family member who has spent decades working in the hospital system close to births and deaths - both ends of the human spectrum. She believes in reincarnation and soul travel etc. Much of this is based on experiences from the workplace. Some of the stories she can tell are incredible and very convincing. Experience is very subjective and imho should never be used as a (or at least main) guide to understanding reality.
So...I will repeat: I would like to find good, rational reason why the Bible has the authority to call the shots - but you guys cannot - I cannot - and until then I will let nature and reality speak. If my growing understanding that we are indeed NOT fallen, but simply human, just as a cat is a cat or a dog is a dog etc, and if that means the ultimately I will have to consider the idea of a saviour etc are nonsense - so be it. Certainly, no one here has shown me good reason to shift in a different direction.
If believing I am "fallen" is a statement from a faith perspective, then I plead guilty in the most dramatic terms possible. That's because I've experienced the redemption God offers so I'm not the same person I used to be. Yes, that is an absolutely and completely subjective view because it is my experience. You can't measure it or believe it without knowing what I was and comparing that to what I am now. My Savior has made such a change in my life that the thought of ever being without Him and going back to what I was is totally repulsive.
If you're looking for a rational reason to believe what God is saying in the Bible, you're not going to find one. That's because you won't trust scripture until you first learn to trust God, who is offering you that same transforming power that has been working in me. Yes, it will be a totally subjective experience. But it will be your experience and very real. You will be amazed to see God giving you reasons to believe that are utterly independent of everything you now know and believe.
How long will you wait to enjoy the intimate and ultimately personal transformation God is offering?
My question for Chris is what would constitute a reasonable and rational demonstration of the Bible’s authority to “call the shots”?
The entire Bible, in reality, is simply all about Jesus and Who He Is. All of its truths are centered on that. There are plural narratives of His life, and teachings, and works on earth. His works were performed for demonstration purposes. As I think about it, the same is true of His life and teachings.
If, for whatever reason, those are not compelling to you, and the scriptures to which He referred and from which He quoted are not convincing, I would recommend that you ask God for the demonstration of authority that would suffice for you.
"You will be amazed to see God giving you reasons to believe that are utterly independent of everything you now know and believe. How long will you wait to enjoy the intimate and ultimately personal transformation God is offering?"
Not long, in fact why should I wait any longer?!:....I think I will go experience the transforming power of Islam and then go blow up some infidel Americans in a plane bomb - It will be even quicker that way - I could have 70 virgins within a week!
Wow think about that! At least that's what their experience and learning tells them would be the reality. Very convincing don't you think? If I am to believe the ONLY test you and Stephen offer me then I would be equally justified in chossing my first suggestion of taking a shortcut to paradise.
Do you see my point?
I have spent almost as many years as my 50 years of life doing exactly that. There have been times and experiences which I have had which lead me to believe there is more than just nothing out there. ie that God IS. And that is a faith statement as those experiences are as totally subjective as is the interpretation of them. That is my personal faith.
What you guys don't seem to understand or "get" is that there is no valid reason that those experiences should, could, or can "demonstrate" that the Bible is such a source of authority. Why should, could or would it do so for me as regards the Bible any more or less than for a Muslim, Mormon, or spiritist as regards their sacred books?
Please: You can Stephen can both answer these.
1 Did you get my point in the post above or NOT? You did not answer it.
2 Spell it out for me: What kind of demonstration of His power and authority should I ask for and require to meet the task you have given me?
There are people of every faith and belief (not all theistic) who would declare they have experienced transformation in their lives exactly as you do. Some even blow up Americans, so please, let's get real and stop the ...well I won't be rude and choose a word.
I've told both William and Jean a dozen times that I used to believe and prayed daily for years and years -- they won't hear it. All you're going to get if either choose to respond to your post here, probably verbatim, is the following:
"cb25, all I can tell you is that God is waiting for you to get to know Him. How long will you ignore the Still Small Voice?"
Remarkable, isn't it?
I have no magic with which to revive your spirit, only a thank-you for your honesty and your commitment to truth and an extended hand offering friendship.
I was a true believer in the '70s loving Jesus and working as a nurse at the local sda hospital, excited for the soon second coming. Several doctors I worked with (including Jack Hoehn's father-in-law I think) encouraged me to go back to school for medicine and join them afterward. So I did. Near the end of the second year in medicine, several months before the big make-or-break national board part one exam, my wife moved out to live with another. I was distraught. I couldn't think... study... eat... sleep... I prayed. I fasted and prayed. I walked and prayed. I knelt and prayed. I read the bible and prayed. I jogged and prayed. I lay prostrate and prayed.... I lost 30 pounds. I felt nothing... no peace.. no comfort.. no assurance.. nothing. I was sure I'd flunk out of school. Then one night out walking and praying, it struck me... oh! I get it, god!! You're not there, are you! At that moment the universe finally made perfect sense to me... and it still does. I have no knowledge of the existence of a deistic god or a theistic god. Many people say they do. Only a few act as if they have the fruit of the spirit that Jesus talked about.
CB, from the little I know about you, I appreciate your spirit, your sensitivity, your hunger for truth. I wish for you peace and happiness and long life. dl
Thanks so much for your encouraging comment.
It is probably a weird kind of thing, but I actually have much more peace now than I have ever had. I would actually go as far as saying that it is being on AT that it comes across differently and negatively affects me. I have been seeking to somehow blend together to my satisfaction a blend of personal faith based on those experiences and the way I believe the world is.
I find here from so many of the vocal folk little ability or willingness to explore ways that could be done. It just degenerates into a tit for tat in denial that there is even a problem.
Thanks for you wish for peace and happiness. I am borderline to a decision now to basically exit AT as a commenter. Contrary to some views I don't just enjoy an argument, but neither is there any sense of goodwill when even good dialogue is hampered by the vocal few. More peace in absense perhaps.
Cheers
I sense that you have more concerns than you have shared, but I could be wrong; and even if I am not, this public forum may not be the place for us to “share.”
To answer your question, I regret to say that I don’t get your point. Of course, as you realize, it may not be all that important that I get your point; or maybe it is.
My point is that I do not have all of the answers, and I do not know you beyond this site.
I appreciate your candor and attempts to reconcile what you view as cognitive discrepancies; at least I did until your recent comments about Jesus and salvation and sin. I don’t mean that to be harsh; but I am trying to be transparent.
My opinion is that you know best what would qualify as demonstrable evidence of the Bible’s authority in matters of faith. I would suggest that your experiences that have led you to (still) believe there is Something out there is a start.
I personally believe that you must believe this in order to get the answers that you have determined that you need. It may be easier to reconcile even this by thinking of the vastness of the known universe and the fact that we observe it to be somehow expanding. What are the odds that we are the only intelligent things in the universe? Think of God, perhaps, as an infinitely more intelligent Life Form than we are (who is desirous of sharing His dimension).
I am not qualified to tell you what to ask for specifically as evidence. I do know that the key to your answer is the man Jesus Christ.
I was going to leave this thread and your last comment, but one point is important. The point you said you did not get. In fairness I will try to unpack it a little for you and William, as he may not have got it either.
William, basically suggested I should set out to experience God's transforming power and asked how long I would wait to experience that.
I suggested I could go to Islam, experience transforming power, become a suicide bomber and presto: be in paradise with 72 virgins.
My point is that Islam, Christianity and many other faiths will tell me that they offer and experience transforming power. I suggested Islam because it should be abundantly clear to you as an American (I think you are) that faith that is based on subjective experiential truths can be profoundly WRONG, yet the certainty felt by its adherents is all consuming. Even to the point of removing all fear or death. Death becomes a means to reaching a better place.
Doesn't that tell you that to suggest to me that I should use experience to "test" the truth or authority of the Bible, or anything about God, is an absolutely and totally unreliable way to test or prove anything? IF it is not unreliable then Islam could also be just as right as Christians about their claims.
In fact, if William and yourself are right that the validity of a belief as tested by transforming power is sufficent to prove it so - you Christian Americans have no right to complain if someone blows up your cities based on their truth. Truth determined in exactly the same way as yours - by experience in transforming power.
Does that make it a bit clearer? In reality, you should be very worried that there are people out there who subscribe to such thinking - it is currently making the world a dangerous place.
Just give me observable, measurable, touchable reality. That will speak to me. Give me nature in all its shapes, beauty, harshness, blood and beauty and let it tell the story of what is. If there is a God then he will most surely have had the wisdom to leave a footprint or two in a fossil, a rock, or my heart. If he has not, there is absolutely no point me believing what some nomad wrote 3000 years ago, or some story about a carpenter for whom there is not a shred of unbiased confirmational historical documentation.
Once upon a time not too many years ago I was shaking my fist at God and demanding answers. I was so busy yelling at God that I wasn't able to see the answers he was already giving. Finally, I got so tired of yelling at God and getting no results that I decided to just give up on Him and quit fighting. It was then God was able to get my attention with a simple message: "I'm still God and I'm still here trying to surround you with my love. Will you let me?"
The psalmist speaks from experience when he tells us to "be still and know that I am god." It works because God speaks to us softly and gently. He is already trying to give you amazing answers that will resolve all your issues.
Do you have ---any--- idea at all how painful it is to read a reply like yours to a post as articulate and sophisticated as the one above it? The pain is almost physical. I die a little inside every time I see this.
Dunning-Kruger is in full effect today, and I'm not even mad, just impressed.
Er, what?
God had to wait quite a while before I allowed Him to resolve my issues and give me peace. I hope you will not keep Him waiting much longer. The relief He offers is great and the peace sweet.
Let me preface this by saying that I saw your comment in the other thread ("The Gay Thing"), and I was impressed. While I don't suspect that we're ever going to agree on much (I'm about to attack your statement above, for example) I realized that I had misjudged you. You're more complex than I'd given you credit for, which is a bit ironic, since my grad school focus is going to be social perceptions over the online medium. For that, I owe you an apology. If you made a few more comments like that one and stayed away from the gradeschool Hallmark card platitudes ("I hope you will not keep Him waiting much longer. The relief He offers is great and the peace sweet."), I think we'd have more meaningful engagement here.
Having said that, what you said above is, of course, crap. I'm not "angry at God," because such a thing would require that I believed in God in the first place. I don't. I'm angry at those who cling to a fairytale, however pleasant it may be, while utterly refusing to question its validity in light of the hundreds of disparate religious belief systems in the world, to say nothing of a TOTAL disregard for the Olympus friggin' Mons of really, really good evidentiary reasons to consider that the story may, in fact, be false. And it gets worse from there, when the religious move to impose their fairytale upon society, but I won't even get into that.
Here's the 60 seconds of Dawkins responding to a question from the audience. His irritation (not at the audience member) is almost tangible, and I echo his thoughts -- that's the source of my hostility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&t=1m27s
William,
Do you diagnose by mail? At least, you haven't stated your fee but also lacking are your qualifications. Telling Tim that "there is a root issue in your life that has made you angry at God," is YOUR perception; has it ever occurred to you that those who have tried to convince him that God is waiting to heal him and he has prayed for years would make a calm person angry, with those expectations?
Those who expect success through prayer SHOULD be angry--at those who keep repeating this as a mantra, or at God, who these advisors promised would listen and heal. The best method: lowered expectations: if one doesn't expect too much he will not be disappointed.
This is the problem with Christians who teach that "God answers prayers." If you don't look for something outside yourself to change, you will not be disappointed.
I just came across your point above re getting the same response over and over etc. Yes. Prophetic! I see the same thing trotted out to you above as well. I don't know how to express what it makes me think without getting booted off AT. I could use some colorfull and blunt language and it would still be inadequate.
William. What you've said to Tim echoes what you've been saying to me. I left you and Stephen to stew in your own ignorance when you totally failed to respond to my point about becoming a Muslim and blowing up your cities for you - based on experiencing God's power through that medium.
This response to Tim just makes me sick to the point I am going to bluntly ask you to respond to my point earlier. Stephen also can wake up and smell the roses - just tell me: if experience is a test of truth why should I not go and experience the transformation that fundamentalist Muslims offer and then turn around with God given authority to blow you (infidels) up???
Please, stop bringing out this ... and respond to the point!! You have no idea how hard you make it to be civil...I look forward to Tim's response!
Frankly, I fail to see the significance of the point and that could be why I missed it; or perhaps it was brought up in colloquy with William.
Experience, Chris, is obviously an individual thing. I cannot speak to anyone else’s experience, so it is very unclear as to what you refer when speaking of leaving me “to stew in [my] own ignorance.”
Religion is used as an excuse for violence and hatred; I certainly understand that. I have never disputed it; have I?
I have not reviewed all of William’s posts, but you have grouped us together. Perhaps you might isolate what I have said relative to the point you attempted to make and want me to address.
I believe that I did say that I don’t know what evidence would suffice for you (because I am not you). Was that the problematic statement I made?
Stephen,
Your remark:
"you must believe this in order to get the answers that you have determined that you need." requires that one accept the Bible as the final authority; but only when it is "rightly interpreted" (code words for the way the church has determined is the right way).
There seems to be an idolatry of the Bible that is confused with faith. Faith comes from a deep need and a search for something outside of one's self. The Bible has been help for many, but it has also been a deterrent. The early church had faith in a person, that was not found in the only Bible available to them, the O.T.
Confusing faith with belief in the Bible is a common problem, perhaps more so with Adventists because they rely so heavily on their distinctive truths to be found and interpreted from the Bible. There were very few doctrines that the early church adopted; many more have been added by man.
You will perhaps appreciate that your line of reasoning is illogical to me.
From where do we (Christians) happen to get the idea that faith is somehow important, or that faith in a Person is/was important, or that the early church had faith in a Person, or that this Person is not pleased without faith?
We are Protestants Elaine. We have a different view of the Bible than Catholics. This is something that you should know.
Are you arguing that Protestants should look to tradition more than we do; and to the Bible less than we do? That would be a more Catholic approach.
I have no magic wand with which to revive your spirit either; but thank you for your candor and transparency.
I am reminded of a sermon recently in which the preacher said that in looking back on certain times when it seemed we have not heard from God, we can see that His silence kept us from disaster and still more misery.
This may or may not have been true in your case, and it is not for me to say. God knows.
Oh man, I've got to start using that one when I screw up.
"Tim, you knew I'd been in a car accident -- why didn't you call me?"
"Yeah, I knew, Trish, but I didn't want to call because you might have electrocuted yourself on the phone."
"What?"
"I said I would have called, but if I had, there's a chance you might have el..."
"No, no no, I heard you. I mean what the hell are you talking about?"
"Well, I knew you were already injured so I didn't want to run the risk of adding to it somehow. Besides, I was already there with you."
"What?"
"I said I was already t..."
"SHUT up, I heard you. I mean what are you talking about? You weren't with me. You were at home on the sofa."
"I was there in spirit, Trish, I swear. In your heart I mean."
"Yeah, a lot of good that did me when I was scared and alone and in pain. You're full of crap."
"Well, you can't prove that I wasn't there. Sorry that you didn't realize it."
*phone goes dead*
"Hello? Trish?"
...err, on second thought, maybe I'll leave that stupid nonsense to the preachers. :)
In your 32 years Tim, have you ever desired something, almost purchased something, almost gone somewhere, almost took a position, or almost did something that, as you later were able to look back in hindsight, recognized that if you actually dodged a proverbial bullet by not getting “your” way?
Perhaps 32 years is not long enough to have this happen; but it will. Sometimes we ask God for what we think we need, or want, and sometimes He doesn’t permit us to have it.
If you have children, or will have children, this concept will become much clearer.
Of course I have, and they haven't always been proverbial bullets, but real ones. I haven't spent my 32 years sitting around the house or working the drive-thru at Dairy Queen... not that there's anything wrong with that. :)
A few years ago, I was driving the lead vehicle in a convoy when a bomb that had been buried overnight at the side of the road was detonated. We were traveling at a consistent 70 miles per hour, and while the guy working the detonator had a clear view of our convoy, he either got excited or miscalculated or both and it went off 2-3 seconds too early. We were shaken but unharmed. I can still remember the sound of the asphalt raining down on my vehicle.
We have a term for that. It's called "lucking out." That's it. There was no divine intervention, no loving God reaching down and hitting the detonator prematurely or anything else. The guy effed up, plain and simple. If I did want to narcissistically presume that our survival was the hand of God, what then am I supposed to say about all the others who have been horrifically disfigured or killed? Was God busy on another call? Was I more deserving of mercy than they? Or -- and this is, I suspect, the answer you'll run with, as is your wont -- does God simply "work in mysterious ways?"
I've been denied positions that I desperately wanted and ended up elsewhere only to find that where I ended up led to bigger and better opportunities. We have terms for that, too: "flexibility," "adaptability," and "perseverence," and being able to recognize new opportunities and take advantage of them. If I presume that this is the hand of God, what then am I to say about all the others who desperately pray for something, are met with silence and then end destitute, on the streets, in prison or dead? Or those who pray for something, GET what they're praying for and then catch a bullet, proverbial or otherwise? Your answer, of course, is going to be that "God knows best even if we don't know what His plan is" or something along those lines, which is, of course, an absurd position.
Circling back to the story you related about the preacher's sermon, which I [cheerfully] mocked above, try telling that to a cancer patient who isn't responding to chemo. Try telling that to somebody who's had his or her legs blown off by an IED, or a teen whose family has disowned him for being gay despite his own fervent prayers to God for help. If you can tell the 'silence' story above to any of them with a straight face, friend, you're a stronger man than I am.
In my opinion, your position only appears to be absurd, because in my opinion, it only appears to be your position.
You appear to reject the notion that free will has resulted in rebellion from life’s intelligent Source (known as sin), causing sickness, suffering, destruction, and death; while you utilize and revel in that free will.
You and others who similarly believe—or more appropriately, believe similarly—are not here to recruit others, but to become believers.
It’s a process. We are all involved.
I know of people who have recovered from stage four cancer, and who have walked away unscathed from devastating vehicle-destroying accidents. I’ve seen God change lives and circumstances.
I have known innocent children to contract disease, and the sweetest of people die slowly and painfully from cancer, and others die from apparently the freakiest of accidents.
God has permitted free will and the rebellion of His most gifted creature(s) and his human creation. Insanity, hate, and death are the results in a war between good and evil.
You argue that the evil visited upon the innocent in Aurora, CO Friday morning was as human (as opposed to humane) as is the altruistic heroism and selflessness often witnessed. I argue that this is type of atrocity is diabolical—the result of sinful depravity of a fallen race.
When we see good in humans it is a flashed reflection of the image of His Creator. When we see evil in humans it is a flashed reflection of the rebellion and the original rebel.
Although we are creatures of relatively great intelligence, we have much less intelligence than does the original life Source and Sustainer. God knows what would happen under every conceivable set of circumstances, and therefore He doesn’t answer to us. He is in the process of making the best out of a bad situation.
We all/both are part of the process.
God’s blessings and protection are real; but so is the near chaos from rebellion. Our lives are sustained by His grace. His grace is the only way out of here—and to complete restoration and reconciliation—often otherwise referred to as salvation.
Dude, God loves you. He’s telling you!
You can cut the "god loves you" crap, because I see no evidence of any god and until you've got something more than Biblical regurgitations and Hallmark card-class platitudes (e.g. "we all are part of the process" -- I mean, give me a break -- what does that even mean?), you're wasting your time.
You didn't address my question in your post, so I'll simply re-post them below. I ask the same question twice in two different ways. If you want to comment on it, great. Otherwise, save your breath because as excited as you are to "save" me, it ain't gonna happen (perhaps you aren't praying hard enough? heh).
A few years ago, I was driving the lead vehicle in a convoy when a bomb that had been buried overnight at the side of the road was detonated. We were traveling at a consistent 70 miles per hour, and while the guy working the detonator had a clear view of our convoy, he either got excited or miscalculated or both and it went off 2-3 seconds too early. We were shaken but unharmed. I can still remember the sound of the asphalt raining down on my vehicle.
We have a term for that. It's called "lucking out." That's it. There was no divine intervention, no loving God reaching down and hitting the detonator prematurely or anything else. The guy effed up, plain and simple. If I did want to narcissistically presume that our survival was the hand of God, what then am I supposed to say about all the others who have been horrifically disfigured or killed? Was God busy on another call? Was I more deserving of mercy than they? Or -- and this is, I suspect, the answer you'll run with, as is your wont -- does God simply "work in mysterious ways?"
I've been denied positions that I desperately wanted and ended up elsewhere only to find that where I ended up led to bigger and better opportunities. We have terms for that, too: "flexibility," "adaptability," and "perseverence," and being able to recognize new opportunities and take advantage of them. If I presume that this is the hand of God, what then am I to say about all the others who desperately pray for something, are met with silence and then end destitute, on the streets, in prison or dead? Or those who pray for something, GET what they're praying for and then catch a bullet, proverbial or otherwise? Your answer, of course, is going to be that "God knows best even if we don't know what His plan is" or something along those lines, which is, of course, an absurd position.
Circling back to the story you related about the preacher's sermon, which I [cheerfully] mocked above, try telling that to a cancer patient who isn't responding to chemo. Try telling that to somebody who's had his or her legs blown off by an IED, or a teen whose family has disowned him for being gay despite his own fervent prayers to God for help. If you can tell the 'silence' story above to any of them with a straight face, friend, you're a stronger man than I am.
So... although you have seen people recover from cancer, et al, and likewise, have seen the "sweetest of people" die slowly and painfully from cancer, you STILL for some bizarre, totally irrational reason attribute those healings to "god" and the "sweetest of people" dying in mind-bending pain and suffering to, what... "free will?" Give me a damn break. If you don't see the problem with your own thinking there, you need some serious help.
I actually answered your question but clearly it wasn’t satisfactory to you; so it’s not clear to me whether you want me to continue to “waste [my] time.”
God permits things bad things to happen. God also prevents bad things from happening. God also causes wonderful things to happen. God is in control of this situation; but this situation is an awful one.
Bad things happen only because of sin. God has made provision for the problem; but it is an ultimate solution to an epic problem—accessed only by faith. Some of these bad things can and have happened to people whom we love. Obviously some of these bad things can and may well even happen to us.
Magnus Carlsen, a chess grandmaster, can play multiple games simultaneously without seeing the boards. God knows what would happen under every conceivable set of circumstances with every combination of human beings in any possible scenario.
He permits some things to happen that appear to make no sense to us. He is infinitely intelligent; we are not.
In Martin Luther King’s last sermon in his church, entitled “The Drum Major Instinct,” in referring to how much people love to hear themselves be praised and to hear nice things said about them, said this: “…you like to be praised. Everybody likes it, as a matter of fact. And somehow this warm glow we feel when we are praised or when our name is in print is something of the vitamin A to our ego. Nobody is unhappy when they are praised, even if they know they don't deserve it and even if they don't believe it.”
What does this have to do with anything that we’re talking about? The bottom line is that there is nothing you can do or say that will diminish God’s great unconditional love for you; even though you know you don’t deserve it and even if you don’t believe it.
Tim, aren’t you wasting our time with trolling statements about whether or not God exists? We are on a Christian website after all.
That said, I do get what you are saying and likewise find many of the Christian arguments for theodicy absurd. Billy Graeme wrote a book about how he met a young man dying in hospital and that the young man should have just focused on the rewards of heaven. What a consumeristic cop-out! Sometimes a very short period of intense pain and trauma can easily outweigh any long term rewards – as you rightly point out, considering all the vets with PTSD.
The fact is, either God is all powerful but doesn’t intervene to stop evil (which makes God evil), or God isn’t all powerful and therefore can’t stop evil (which makes God something less than omnipotent). I choose the later – God isn’t all powerful. In fact, God is extremely limited! The reason why someone’s legs were blown off with an IED, despite answers to prayer, is that GOD CAN’T STOP THE CARNAGE!
The reason for God’s impotence – free will. Ever since God gave dominion to Adam to rule over the earth, He was only ever worked through intermediaries – namely mankind. Even God’s most direct intervention in this world, was still through a man – when God became a man in Jesus Christ.
My favourite author on this subject is Dorothy Soelle. She says, ‘We are God’s hands’. God does influence the hearts of human beings, and when they listen, God does hear our prayers and change the world. But usually, prayers don’t get answered because WE ARE THE ANSWER TO SOMEONE ELSE’S PRAYER, and we reject the Holy Spirit’s calling.
God can and does preserve. Lamentations 3:22
God can and will stop the carnage.
I agree that God uses people, and especially those willing to be used by Him, to demonstrate His love for all. I don’t agree that He can’t do.
Stephen (Ferguson) was incredibly clear. God cannot because of humans have free will. I am willing to bet that Stephen was not suggesting that human will trumps God's will, but that God has placed that restriction on himself and unless He abandons His mission He cannot do anything He wants.
Re this point: "Ever since God gave dominion to Adam ... He [h]as only ever worked through intermediaries – namely mankind. Even God’s most direct intervention in this world, was still through a man – when God became a man in Jesus Christ."
Are you suggesting that Calvary made no difference to how God can relate to/work in the world since Calvary? I thought that all Christians were agreed that Calvary made some difference. The disagreement is in how much - not "if". ie some SDA's teach Last Generation Theology - that Jesus is waiting for a perfect generation etc. Some teach that it was all accomplished on the Cross.
Either of these views leaves your above statement without support. In light of Tim's comments the apparent complete and utter non interventionist nature of the observable presence of God since the cross leaves a major puzzle: If in fact Calvary happened and it ushered in a change in how God relates to the world, why does nothing appear to have changed in observable input by God? (indeed compared to the stated events of the OT there would appear to be less action rather than more)
Some have spent a lot of time trying to answer the question "Why Jesus Waits". After 2000 years of uninterrupted and ongoing life in all its joy and misery, sunshine and darkness the arguments are growing tiresome. What will they/we be saying to defend a non interventionist God and a possibly mythical calvary by the year 4000!?
Free will! You and I don't have contra causal free will. If the Great Controversy theme is true then God is bloody cruel to give Satan free will at our expense. (I use the word bloody in the sense of the blood, chaos and disaster that often depicts nature and our world.) Whatever free will Satan has on this earth one could assume it is not contra causal but is allegedly certainly beyond our power to work within causality. Did I hear someone ask about fairness? Right? A God of love just sits back and twiddles his thumbs in the name of free will while some wanna be dictator does his own thing unimpeded by anything on earth - even a so called Calvary.
Who wants a God like that?
God can and does preserve. Lamentations 3:22
God can and will stop the carnage.
I agree that God uses people, and especially those willing to be used by Him, to demonstrate His love for all. I don’t agree that He can’t do.
Ok, I can't seem to get a straight answer about this. My question is very, very simple. In fact, when I sit back before hitting the "preview comment" button in an effort to make it even more clear, I find that I'm not able to do so because it's already just about as clear as it could possibly be.
In light of your belief that God can and "will" not only preserve but also prevent suffering, what would you say to a cancer patient who is not responding to chemotherapy, or somebody whose legs were blown off, or somebody in the depths of suffering who tearfully pleads to God for help but recieves nothing but silence?
It's not complicated. I don't want to hear "ohhhhhhh, well see free will is so important to God..." yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda. That's not my question, and that response does not address my question. Nor do I want to hear "well, sometimes God sees the bigger picture and we don't always know His plan..." yadda yadda yadda. That is also not my question, and that also does not address my question.
You've asserted that God both can and does ease and prevent suffering. Given this assertion, what do you say to those people whose suffering is neither eased nor prevented?
The reason for God’s impotence – free will. . .
My favourite author on this subject is Dorothy Soelle. She says, ‘We are God’s hands’. God does influence the hearts of human beings, and when they listen, God does hear our prayers and change the world. But usually, prayers don’t get answered because WE ARE THE ANSWER TO SOMEONE ELSE’S PRAYER, and we reject the Holy Spirit’s calling.
First, you're openly contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say God can't stop the carnage, and then you immediately say "God does hear our prayers and change the world." Which is it? I'm not so stupid that I'm going to buy this, so you'll either have to come up with something better or realize that what you're saying is absurd.
Second, if God *can't* stop the carnage, and if "we are God's hands," or some weird thing (which then begs the question, why even believe in a God if his "workings" are indistinguishable from human activity?), then why bother to pray in the first place?
You just aren't making any sense to me.
No one freely chooses his birthplace and parents.
No one freely chooses his early source of education, including religion.
No one chooses his genetic inheritance.
No one chooses his sex.
That should be sufficient to illustrate that the most important influence in a person's life are totally out of his control. A Muslim woman born in Afghanistan cannot simply "choose" not be married early or demand an education--that prevents her from even realizing there are other choices that could be made.
I have had a couple of friends and a number of relatives die within the past few years and have still other relatives battling cancer as we speak.
For those close to me, I would remind them of the love we have experienced and shared and of the assurances that the same love that created us and which was reflected in what we have shared will also reunite us. Then there will be no pain or separation.
You see the ‘idea’ of God at its essence is only really about love. This idea or concept of love at its essence is really only about God. God is as real as love is.
I would remind my friend or relative that the love that he/she has experienced, felt, given and shared was all God; and that He is suffering with them.
It was clear to me that most if not all of my friends and relatives who have suffered and died in this manner knew this better than me.
On reflection, I hope I would say about the same thing to someone else.
I have and still feel some empathy for your frustration and perhaps some anger in not being able to get satisfactory answers. I hope you will not be offended if I chastise you bit in this post.
Your last couple of posts remind me of grandson when he tries to dictate what he wants and what he want do to get it. There are times when it would be extremely uncaring for him to get what he wants. That can even be true when what he wants is to excape a painful situation.
Unless I am misunderstanding, you are trying to create a false dichotomy in which God has to either fix everything or fix nothing in the human condition. If God has the power typically ascribe to Him then He can do bloody well what He wants. So, if he does fix things sometimes and doesn't at other times. It is more of question of why.
Obviously, semantics can get in the way of explanations at this point. When we say can't do something we might be talking about capability or we might being restricted by a reality that He has chosen to create. I don't know of any more plausible explanation than God is making room for choice in the reality He has created.
None of us has the perspective to say definitively what choices (free will) humans do have, but it is abundantly clear (see Elaines comment) that we do not get to choose any and all things (if we could that would pretty much make us what we commonly would call God). But, that does not me there are no real choices.
BTW, human choices are intertwined (no man is an island). Regardless of how literally you take Genesis, it is obvious that the Serpent's access was limited and Adam and Eve's choice was a simple one. We may not be able to comprehend the true nature of the choice and how they experienced it, but it certainly implied that this was more of test and theoretically passing the test would have ended Satan's access to decieve provoke a bad choice.
The scriptures are very clear about the intertwined impact of human choices. It does not paint this world as a fair place where we suffer only based on our on wrong choices. It also seems in many ways to suggest that the choice we were intended to have has been gravely compromised (slaves to sin, etc.).
One of the reason's I believe in the scriptures is the way in which it addresses the question of free will and suffering. It never tries to paint in simplistic or fair terms. And in the end it reduces human choice to a one single choice. What do we do with Christ who came to save FROM SIN? Do we acknowledge we have sin and need saving? That seems to be all God asks. It makes perfect sense if God want us to make a choice, our capability to choose has been greatly compromised, and we can never hope in our current condition to become or behave sinless.
When I have been in great suffering it can be very hard to see beyond. But, I try to remember what it means to be a parent. I paid money for my children to suffer at the hands of doctors and dentists and when they were young they didn't comrehend at all. I think the suffering of this world can be a similar thing.
But, God may still intervene for reasons we don't fully comprehend. Obviously, He often does not even when we pray and pray and pray and pray ... (well you get the picure). If the pie in the sky is real the suffering here could easily fade into oblvion.
Perfect example of deliberate ofuscation: it's either this way, or that way, but we don't know which. Might as well guess, or simply drop it all and leave God out of it. It's all in one's mind and trying to determine if it's God's will or not, ot my wishes could drive a person to insanity.
Simply chuck it all and stop trying to outguess God. Where do you find such
B.S. in the Bible: God might help, or He might not want want to and might even deliberately prevent it. Of such mental gymmastics is schizophrenia born.
Or, you can ask for some sign as Gideon did, and then, instead of a Tarot card, abide by the results. Is God some glorified Ouija board?
Either my comments were confusing or you didn't digest them. I was enumerating possible conclusions that are more or less the extremes. I was trying to suggest the truth is some place in between known only to God.
God's reply is very funny and interesting, 'Am I not sending you.'
God is saying, stop claiming Gideon about a lack of divine intervention to your prayers. Don't you get it. You Gideon, you are my miracle, you are the answer to Israel's prayers.
You are the image of God on earth, so start being my agent - when you do something in My name - I do it. Where you chicken out and fail to do My will - then that is where I have not answered someone else's prayer.
To me that is the essence of evangelism. Evangelism is not throwing pamphlets from an airplane, holding tent meetings and having to account for how many people have been brought to the truth this month/year.
Agnostics who have no particular concept of God are not worrying about their death while many Christians are. I'll choose peace rather than fear.
This wonderful woman had been traumatized through the years by ??? well-meaning SDA Christians. In a house fire (basement of church, January - North Dakota) her 2 year old daughter died and 4 year old son severely burned with head and body wrapped in bandages. The conference president visited and commented "things look not so bad after all". What an inspiring individual who was also filled with fear because of the doctrines of the church. By the way what do you think of the evangelism of the leader of that conference?
I sound bitter - only relating a story and in the meantime feeling at peace because of where I am mentally and spiritually as well as being part of this dialogue.
But we all have had experiences that have disappointed us. I have not been an Adventist all my life. But It seems that God is helping our church be more and more Christ centered. We are moving from the fear based to the faith based I believe.
IN response to your puzzle what you had missed higher up.
William basically suggested I should set out to experience God's transforming power and asked how long I would wait to experience that.
William, you asked how long it would take me to decide/seek to experience God's transforming power. Stephen you expressed agreement about the importance of experience. You then said you did not get my point. Below is a copy of my effort to upack it a bit for you both.
"I suggested I could go to Islam, experience transforming power, become a suicide bomber and presto: be in paradise with 72 virgins.
My point is that Islam, Christianity and many other faiths will tell me that they offer and experience transforming power. I suggested Islam because it should be abundantly clear to you as an American (I think you are) that faith that is based on subjective experiential truths can be profoundly WRONG, yet the certainty felt by its adherents is all consuming. Even to the point of removing all fear or death. Death becomes a means to reaching a better place.
Doesn't that tell you that to suggest to me that I should use experience to "test" the truth or authority of the Bible, or anything about God, is an absolutely and totally unreliable way to test or prove anything? IF it is not unreliable then Islam could also be just as right as Christians about their claims.
In fact, if William and yourself are right that the validity of a belief as tested by transforming power is sufficent to prove it so - you Christian Americans have no right to complain if someone blows up your cities based on their truth. Truth determined in exactly the same way as yours - by experience in transforming power.
Does that make it a bit clearer? In reality, you should be very worried that there are people out there who subscribe to such thinking - it is currently making the world a dangerous place.
Just give me observable, measurable, touchable reality. That will speak to me. Give me nature in all its shapes, beauty, harshness, blood and beauty and let it tell the story of what is. If there is a God then he will most surely have had the wisdom to leave a footprint or two in a fossil, a rock, or my heart. If he has not, there is absolutely no point me believing what some nomad wrote 3000 years ago, or some story about a carpenter for whom there is not a shred of unbiased confirmational historical documentation."
In light of that explanation and subsequent repeated suggestions that I should experience, test, taste and see etc, do you understand why I get frustrated?
Hence my re run question: "just tell me: if experience is a test of truth why should I not go and experience the transformation that fundamentalist Muslims offer and then turn around with God given authority to blow you (infidels) up???"
I have not disregarded "prior answers". I am responding to those "answers" with a point which, unless you can respond with a logically sensible answer, invalidates your previous answers.
I am debating the credibility of God's promises? If these promises are so wonderful the onus is on you to demonstrate they are valid in reality. That is not too much to ask.
Why should you waste your testimony when I refuse to give it credibility? THAT my friend is precisely my point. WHY should I give your testimony any more weight than that of a terrorist Muslim, or a warm bosomed Mormon, or a Yogic Nirvana?
Simple: Why yours? Why the Bible's? why not someone who is willing to die in a plane to kill infidel Americans?
In case you see fit to find another reason to refuse to answer: let me do so! There is no reason for your experience against another. Both or all are legitimate to the person involved. BUT it does not demonstrate the truth or rightness of the beliefs or outcomes and ACTIONS I choose to undertake as a result.
A child is absolutely convinced of Santa Claus by her experience: She asked Santa for certain gifts; she received them; ergo, Santa Claus is very real!
I have not stressed personal experience with you or for you because only you know what would suffice for you as evidence. William repeatedly tells about his experiences and urges you to share in them.
On the other hand, I have referred you to the narratives of the life and teachings of Jesus in the Bible; and to consider the implications of them. I have suggested that you consider the vastness of the universe, and the odds that we are the sole (or most) intelligent life form to exist in it. In lieu of that, I have suggested that you pray for whatever you need. We are admonished to able to give a reason for the faith we have. We cannot speak for each other’s experience. I cannot tell you what you need (especially with regard to personally probative evidence).
You argue that an experience is not what you would deem as sufficiently probative. Clearly, you did not have any such “experience” when you were a “believer.” (If you had this wouldn’t be an issue.) Of course, this begs the question, since you have previously believed without an experience; it would seem that "experience" is not necessary for everyone in order to believe (unless, of course, you never really believed.)
Your question is for William to address.
Yes I did conflate you both because you bought into William's points - deliberately. Even though you did not make the comments about experience as directly as he did, you expressed the point that you did not get my point, so I responded to both of you.
It is true that your leaning was not as heavy on experience, but you did say "Though William’s sentiments resonate with me; it’s better that he expressed them than me. (It’s curious how that works, isn’t it?)".
If you feel you did not own any of the experience angle, my apologies, but you did say you did not get the point about what I wrote, at first to William, so I spelled it out to both of you and neither of you made any response suggesting understanding of it. Suggesting I pray for what I need is little different imho.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying how you see it.
Though William’s sentiments resonate with me; it’s better that he expressed them than me. (It’s curious how that works, isn’t it?)
This statement, and particularly the parenthetical remark, was actually intended toward ‘those’ who would permit William’s sentiments to stand without further comment, but if I had said the same exact thing, ‘they’ might have accused me of a pharisaical approach or attitude.
My question for Chris is what would constitute a reasonable and rational demonstration of the Bible’s authority to “call the shots”?
The entire Bible, in reality, is simply all about Jesus and Who He Is. All of its truths are centered on that. There are plural narratives of His life, and teachings, and works on earth. His works were performed for demonstration purposes. As I think about it, the same is true of His life and teachings.
If, for whatever reason, those are not compelling to you, and the scriptures to which He referred and from which He quoted are not convincing, I would recommend that you ask God for the demonstration of authority that would suffice for you.
Although William’s statement resonated with me, my question for you had to do with what you would determine to be rational. Likewise my recommendation for prayer had to do with what you would deem a probative demonstration of authority; not necessarily experiential.
Your challenge about Islam and terrorism had nothing to do with my statements or questions to you; therefore I ignored it.
I reiterate, in my view, the life and teachings of Jesus, and His relation to the Scriptures from which He quoted and to which He referred, are key. However, I can only speak for me.
In light of the discussion we have had to date you may be interested in an "experience" I had yesterday.
I was on the far side of town at Bunnings Hardware store. I came out of the car park and could turn right and go through semi back streets and over a steep hill to home, with just one traffic light, but several roundabouts; or I could turn left and go to the main road through the city of Wagga Wagga where I would have 5 sets of traffic lights. It was 11:30 am with fairly busy traffic.
As I looked across toward the hill I would cross, if I turned right, I visualized the roads (not visible from where I was of course). Then I glanced left and visualized the road through town, not visibile either, but "saw" in my mind all the lights green. At the same moment the awareness popped into my head that I would have green lights all the way. All 5 lights spread over 3 kms. I have lived here for 10 years and recall getting green lights only once in light traffic.
I turned left. Every light was green - all 5!
Can I explain it? No. Does it prove God to me? No. Does it suggest something outside our usual awareness of reality? Yes, I suspect so.
William,
If you look at google maps (not earth) I think the area you speak of is identified as the Murrumbidgee Turf Club. We are the biggest inland city in OZ. 60k population. I'm on the eastern side/edge of town.
Elaine, yes there is a thing called luck:)
Joe, I think there are a few areas in out biggest cities where lights are synchronized, but very few. re the way we dismiss things that don't happen. We do, and they would well stack up to be the majority of times if we took better note.
Just to complicate this a little more: Thursday night (same day) I drove my youngest to the Movies. Before leaving home I asked if he had anyone who could give him a lift home. Answer no. As I droped him off I asked "What time?". He replies "I'll call you".
I was tired and wanted to get to bed, so thought I'd drive to the threatre ahead of time and be there when his movie ended. As I considered this, I saw in my mind a picture of him getting into a car outside the theatre. I dissmissed it on the grounds he had said there was no one to give him a lift, and about 15 minutes before I figured the movie would end I drove to the threatre to wait. After a while I went in to find out when his movie finished and learnt that it was a longer movie than most. I had another half hour to wait till 10:30. Sitting in the car I dozed off, only to be woken by my phone at 10:45! It was my son at home saying "Dad..what are you doing?!" He got a lift, I ignored the picture, and so much for my early night!
Over active imagination? Luck? Actually probably just bad luck...but then it does leave one wondering about things beyond our usual sense and awareness.
Keep on being a good Dad. Though things may have worked out differently than you expected, you demonstrated your love for your son. That means a lot. It was a clear demonstration of your love that will reassure him for a long time about just how much you care.
After all the challenges of raising my son and daughter, one of the sweetest moments of my life came a couple days before his wedding when he called and took the time to thank me for all the things I had taught him and modeled. What he appreciated most was the times I had been there for him. Maybe I was just driving him to or from school. We laughed about some of our adventures as amateur backpackers. I barely remember showing him how to use a map and navigate with a compass, but that skill came in very handy on a training exercise with his Army unit. When a fellow soldier asked where he learned how to do it he replied, "My Dad taught me how." Hearing him recount things like that was sweeter than honey.
I'm not sure it does. My understanding of nature, matter and reality lead me to wonder more about the interconnectedness of life. I am more inclined to suspect that these things, (if they are even real) happen on a more natural level. Quantum entanglement and quantum mechanics are fascinating areas of study.
There are documented stories of dogs knowing within the hour when their "owner" was coming home from an indefinite stay away; meeting their "owner" at the train station miles from home for an un- announced visit etc.
I wonder that we are too quick to "create" God out of or because of these type of experiences, when in reality, if they exist, they may be more to do with being a part of nature. Nature has a lot of complexity we do not understand. Perhaps within this concept is where we could even use the term "spiritual" without having to invoke "God"?
In keeping with the Litmus test: Perhaps there is a whole area of meaning related to this that could offer humanity a greater sense of one-ness with nature, each other, and other creatures. That could be "better news" than some of the hang ups we impose upon people with our all to frequent doom and gloom and sin, guilt and shame.