Experiencing God and Emotional Identification

I've spent hours each day for the last few years rethinking what I believe about God and why. I usually end up back at my conversion experience at the age of almost 17, a point at which I experienced a deep shift in my thinking and felt the beginnings of a "spiritual" life.

Something I have always known about my conversion experience was that it wasn't based on fear of hell, or deep remorse for my sins, or even belief in the historical resurrection of Jesus and the miracles in the Bible. In the back of my mind I knew about these things. I knew what it meant to feel guilty and sinful. I knew the Bible stories that I had read and learned in my childhood church attendance. I imagined there was such a thing as heaven or hell, though I didn't spend much time thinking about it.

No. None of those concepts mattered that much to me. They didn't speak to me or motivate my mind and heart in any discernible way.

What led me to become a Christian was a deep emotional identification with Christ and a love that sacrificed itself for people who didn't even care about it, or have enough of it themselves to appreciate its depth.

At the time, I had made a choice to move with my mother and younger brothers to Florida for the last two years of high school. Just before that move, my mother and I had a terrible, physical fight that had been indirectly instigated by her abusive boyfriend. I had bruises all over my face and arms and was completely distraught. I ran away and stayed with my best friend's family for a week or two until my mother apologized and asked me to come back home.

I did eventually go back home and that physical incident turned out to be an isolated one. It never happened again, even though my mother still had quite a temper.

However, the abusive boyfriend was still in the picture. You see my youngest brother, who was about 2 years old at the time, was the son of the abusive boyfriend. Although he and my mother would periodically break up violently and then reconcile in the typical, cyclical way that dysfunctional abusive relationships do, he would never really be out of the picture because my younger brother tied he and my mother together.

Being a teenager living in that kind of chaos was maddening. It is frustrating to be a child with more sense than the adults in your family. The helplessness of being a minor in a household in which you have no control over what's happening, and no ability to stop the bad choices that are being made is torture. All you can do is lock yourself up in your room and count the days until you turn 18 and graduate from high school so that you can shake the dust off your feet and be free to live a sane life.

The problem was that I didn't want to go to Florida, because the abusive boyfriend was going to be going also and living with us.

I didn't want to go. I knew what would happen in Florida, more of the same in a different location. Yet, I was in a quandary. I had to make a choice. You see, even though my parents divorced when I was two, I always knew that if things got really bad I could ask to move in with my father. The only obstacle preventing me from leaving was the prospect of abandoning my two younger to the chaos that was to come.

I had to choose between a way of escape for myself, or forcing myself to head into a life that I knew would be miserable.

Whenever events in our household went downhill, I was the one to pull it together. If the boyfriend got violent, I called the police...frequently. When he got nasty, I intervened. I truly believed that my presence kept things from being worse because I wasn't afraid of my mother's boyfriend and he knew it. He also knew that, unlike my mother, who would never have the will to press and pursue charges against him, that I would relish the opportunity to see him behind bars if he ever laid a finger on me or on one of my brothers.

I was the boundary around my family that he couldn't cross, even at the young ages of 14, 15, and 16.

During this time I was severely hurt and angry. I blamed my mother for her weakness and for subjecting us to her chaos. Each time she welcomed back the boyfriend I was crushed. She was choosing him over us. She was choosing a few moments of "love" over the safety and well-being of her children.

So...when the time came for this move to Florida, I didn't know what to do. I desperately wanted to escape but I felt a deep obligation to protect my brothers with my presence.

I eventually chose to go to Florida, giving up my way of escape for my mother and family even though the protection I offered was never recognized or understood by my mother. I was performing a thankless service.

A few months after making that decision, I was "witnessed" to by my older brother and his pastor. What broke me and instantly sliced through my heart was one question that the pastor posed to me:

"Do you know that Jesus suffered for you, because he loves you?"

Which he followed up with,"Do you know what it means to sacrifice yourself for people you love, even if they don;t realize it?"

Why, yes! I knew exactly what that was like. I burst into tears, not only because I suddenly believed, but because I identified myself emotionally with all that Jesus represented. I began to follow him because he was like me in some essential way and I was like him in some essential way.

That is what it means to experience God. We experience a moment in which we recognize Him in us and us in Him.

All of our worship, all of our singing, all of our praying...these are all ways that we emotionally identify ourselves with God and experience Him.

Realizing this has made me worry much less about whether I have a unified explanation for my beliefs, or sometimes lack of beliefs.

Knowing and Believing

It doesn't make any sense but we all know what Earl is talking about.

Humanity's Belief

A few weeks ago I came across this chart on someone's blog:

It's made the rounds here and there to bolster the argument that science and studying science doesn't make one an atheist. Usually, this comes up in the discussion of Creationism and Evolution.

What I found most striking, however, was the large correlation with studying the humanities and social sciences and the drop-off in religiosity for people in those fields.

My initial stab at explaining this is to posit that science is about facts while the humanities are about ideas. And nothing is quite as disturbing to one's own preconceived notions as encountering other people's well-argued, preconceived notions.

While scientific discoveries can lead to people re-evaluating their religious beliefs, it is usually not at the hands of scientists that we falter and rethink our assumptions, but at the hands of people who try to integrate those scientific discoveries into far-reaching ideas.

Those people tend to be writers, philosophers, social scientists....in other words, people who dabble in the humanities.

Most students arriving as freshman have only been exposed to a basic sweep of ideas and a general overview of literature and philosophy. Plunging deeper into that pool will naturally expose students to ideas they have never considered or arguments that are more powerful than what they have gotten at home.

On the negative side, it only takes one or two confident, authoritative professors to completely undermine a student's wavering faith....and humanities professors are more prone to see it as their duty to strip away and challenge their students' ideas.

Science professors are more concerned with teaching their students the facts and theories of their particular fields. While a science professor might spout off his or her theist/atheist philosophy in the midst of a class, it isn't the main subject, or even relevant to a student's understanding of how DNA works.

A humanities professor, on the other hand, has a much more powerful position because they work in the trade of explaining concepts and ideology through Literature, or Philosophy, or History, or Language, etc. Completing a humanities course and getting a good grade will inevitably involve regurgitating an interpretation of a particular text or idea that meets with the professor's approval.

Anyone who has ever had a terrible humanities professor, or perhaps better put, a biased humanities professor, can testify to how frustrating it can be.

I recall one Dr. Stanley who gave me my first ever D on a World Lit. test because he didn't like my answers. I was mortified and a little outraged because I felt that the answers he marked wrong, weren't wrong. I was shocked until I heard that almost everyone else had failed the test. I had to take him again the next year for European Lit. The first test gave me a C+. Once again everyone else did worse than me....and these were small classes filled with bright students, many of them smarter than me. However, we had run up against a professor who was certain of his interpretation and wasn't open to anyone else's. We survived the only way we could....by giving him what he wanted, even if we didn't believe it ourselves.

Dr. Stanley wasn't very charismatic, so he didn't win any converts to his ideas, but it isn't hard to see how if he had been more charismatic he might have been able to convince everyone to take a particular view of the subject matter, especially if it had been about something more substantial than literature.

BTW....this isn't an indictment of all Humanities profs.

So...no hate mail...OK!? ;-)

Reading "The God Delusion"--Part One

Way back, about a month or two ago, I had done a few posts about atheism. Intrigued by the new wave of atheistic media that has swelled into recent popularity, I put myself on the list for Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, at my local library. There was quite a number of people ahead of me, so I put it on the back burner of my mind and promptly forgot about it.

It arrived yesterday and I have been engrossed in it since this morning, picking it up here and there whenever I have free time. So far, I have yet to run through the streets singing REM's Losing My Religion. (Boy am I dating myself with that reference!) I'm almost through chapter 3--Arguments For God's Existence. I am not devastatingly impressed. However, I still have more chapters to read; maybe Dawkins will put aside his little bitternesses and surprise me with some new thought that I haven't previously heard.

My biggest annoyance, is with his constant reliance on the phrase,"I suspect." Although, sometimes he swaps it out for,"One feels," or "I don't think." Over and over he will use these phrases to assert that many leaders, thinkers and scientists were almost certainly as adamantly atheistic as himself. He reinterprets their own words in the light of this assumption, assuring us that if they had really spoken what they felt, they would have been more adamant and less vague in regard to religion, science, and the interaction of the two. Conveniently, most of those he refers to are dead and cannot speak for themselves. What bad timing for them!

I am not saying that Dawkins portrays devout Christians as atheists, but people with more vague and philosophical leanings, or scientists who were less idealistically opposed to religion than himself are subject to his "scientific" revisionist mind-reading.

Regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, he writes:

"Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt
that most of them would have been atheists in ours." (page 39) [emphasis mine]

hmmm....no doubt? Dawkins, say it ain't so! How can you have no doubt about something that is unprovable? Isn't that contrary to your whole thought system, being certain of things that have no provable basis?

In regards, to T.H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic and declared that agnostics have no creed, not even a negative one, Dawkins writes:

"But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or
disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability.
The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something
does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing. I don't
think Huxley would disagree, and I suspect that when he appeared
to do so he was bending over backwards to concede a point, in the interests of
securing another one."( pages 49-50) [emphasis mine]

In recounting an episode during which two astronomers turn over a deep question--which Dawkins had put to them--to a chaplain, he writes:

"I suspect that neither the Cambridge nor the Oxford astronomer really believed that theologians have any expertise that enables them
to answer questions that are too deep for science. I suspect that
both astronomers were bending over backwards to be polite...."(pages 56-57)

Concerning Stephen Gould's statements and writings, he says:

"I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much
of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages. As I say, we have all been
guilty of bending over backwards to an unworthy but powerful opponent, and I
can only think that this is what Gould was doing."(page 57) [emphasis
mine]

On and on it goes. It's tedious and unnecessary. It's as if he is building up an army of thinkers to give his own thoughts and views more clout. Don't bore me with theories about what might have been in a different time or universe. Tell me what you think, and why, without trying to assemble a list of allies. As I said, I find it annoying.

A corresponding, though less obvious, theme permeates the book so far--that Christians are motivated by either fear, ignorance, or the desire to control others for power or money. While being able to mind-read the motivations of dead thinkers and scientists is an amazing power to have, it is not nearly as impressive as being able to mind-read what all Christians must think! I have yet to come across one sentence that implies that people might be religious because they are altruistic in their outlook on God, life, and others. Has he never come in contact with a sincere, caring, intelligent believer? He leaves the impression that everyone he has met who carries the label, Christian, is the worst sort of person. Perhaps, that can be chalked up to his own bias? Only he knows.

When discussing religious experience as a basis of belief in God, Dawkins explains how our brains are designed to makes sense of things that have no sense--referring mainly to visions and voices that people claim to have seen or heard. He assures us that our brains can be untrustworthy. I contend that he seems not to distrust his brain at all when he ventures to suppose what others really thought and currently think.

Discussing the famous "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" argument from C.S. Lewis, Dawkins insists that the three options are "ludicrously inadequate."

"A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken." (page 92)

Very interesting reasoning in that it completely contradicts his whole premise and the very title of his book! Jesus calls himself the Son of God, but is honestly mistaken? Wait a minute, didn't Dawkins earlier write in the Preface:

The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a
persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence,
especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder'. (page5)

And on page 89, didn't he quote Sam Harris' work, The End of Faith, when discussing personal experiences?:

" 'We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational
justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them
'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or
'delusional'.....' "

Considering that before Jesus made the claim that he was the Son of God no one else believed it, and it wasn't a commonly held belief, doesn't that fit Dawkins' and Harris' definition of mad? Of course it does, but it doesn't further Dawkins argument at this point in the book.

Well, I still have to finish the last few pages of Chapter 3 and then the rest of the book. Perhaps, I am misjudging the groundwork that Dawkins is laying. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I reach the last page.

Refuting "The Jesus Puzzle"--Part One

Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle is an attempt to disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. This, of course, presents a serious problem for Christians. If there is no actual human Jesus, the entire thing falls apart. Christianity, at its core, relies upon the facts of Jesus of Nazareth's existence and the belief that he lived, was crucified and was physically resurrected. If there is no
Jesus, there is no Christianity.

Doherty divides his puzzle into twelve pieces and then delves further into his argument after presenting his puzzle pieces. I will respond to his article in several parts in order to break up the posts and deal with things in more detail.

The first pillar of Doherty's argument is built on removing the gospels and the book of Acts as reference material. He does this, not by specifically disproving them, but through a round-about attempt to eliminate them on the basis that the non-gospel writers of the New Testament(Paul, Peter, James) are silent on the specific details of Jesus earthly life.

He writes:

In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and
John, the Gospel story cannot be found. [emphasis mine] When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him.

and later

The one clear placement of Christ in recent times, the accusation in
1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 that Jews in Judea had killed the Lord Jesus, has been
rejected as an interpolation by most of today’s liberal scholars,1 while the one Gospel
episode Paul seems to allude to, Jesus’ words over the bread and wine at what he
calls "the Lord’s Supper" in 1 Corinthians 11:23f, can be interpreted as a
mythical scene Paul has himself developed through perceived revelation.
Otherwise, no non-Gospel writer of the first century makes any statement which
would link the divine spiritual Son and Christ they all worship and look to for
salvation, with a man who had recently walked the sands of Palestine, taught and prophecied and performed miracles, a man executed by Pontius Pilate on Good Friday outside Jerusalem, to rise from a nearby tomb on Easter Sunday morning. This "conspiracy of silence" is as pervasive as it is astonishing.

The silence is hardly deafening. References to Jesus abound that refer to his humanity, and occasionally appeal to eyewitness testimony.

2Peter 1:16-18

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying,"This is my Son whom I love; with him I am well-pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were on the sacred mountain. [emphasis mine]

1 Peter 2:23-24

When they hurled their insults at him he did not retaliate; when he suffered he made
no threats. Instead he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness. [emphasis mine]

1 Peter 5:1(a)

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings....

Peter mentions his eyewitness testimony about Jesus and we are to believe that this doesn't refer to an historical Jesus? Doherty quotes no refutation of the epistles of Peter on this account.

Paul refers to Pontius Pilate and The Lord's Supper, but then Doherty conveniently
declares that these are later interpolations and intrusions into the text, that were not there originally. Why? Well, because according to Doherty, the gospels are false, so if the epistles reference them, then they must have been tampered with--a nice bit of circular reasoning attested to by liberal scholars. (his own description of said scholars)

The "silence" that seems to fuel Doherty's argument on this point is very easily explained if one considers the purpose of the epistles in the New Testament. They functioned, not as a first communication to people who had never heard about Jesus, but as letters to already established communities of believers. The audience for the epistles had already heard and received the gospel story of Jesus, so why would Paul, or any other writer, devote time to retell the story? Many of the recipients had been visited by Paul previously, receiving his missionary preaching about Jesus.

We see in 1 Corinthians that Paul had previously visited them and preached while he was there. Referring to his previous visit, he writes:

1 Corinthians 2:1-2
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

And in Galatians 1 :8, concerning a previous visit to Galatia, he writes:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

And in verse 11 of the same chapter:
I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something I made up.

It goes on and on throughout Paul's writings that he has either personally visited the locations before these letters were written, or the churches which he has not visited are already flourishing Christian communities. When he had visited them, it had been for the express purpose of evangelizing them for the first time. It would have been during those times that he would have related the historical details about Jesus, not years later as he is writing to correct errors that have popped up, or provide clarification about specific issues.

Doherty asserts that the non-Christian record of the time makes no mention of Jesus. That assertion is debatable and not accepted by the majority of biblical scholars. He goes on to list non-Christian sources, but then refutes them once again by declaring that they were all corrupted by Christians and cannot be trusted, Jospehus being the most important example.

Josephus’ famous passage in Antiquities 18 is acknowledged to be, as it stands, a Christian interpolation, and arguments that an original reference
to Jesus either stood there or can be distilled from the present one,
founder on the universal silence about such a reference on the part of
Christian commentators until the 4th century.2 As for the reference
in Antiquities 20 to James as "brother of Jesus, the one called (the)
Christ", this passage also bears the marks of Christian interference.3

Christopher Price offers another perspective on Josephus, claiming that the majority of scholars agree that there exists at least partial authenticity in the Josephus references. Price writes:

Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from
diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter
and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity.

Scholars go back and forth on the small tidbits of non-biblical mentions of Jesus. It is hard to sort out an honest appraisal because many of the scholars come with agendas guiding their conclusions.

I'm tired! I'll write more later.

Self-Evident

So my little conversation with Mr. Cline got me thinking.

I wrote my posts on atheism as a way to express, in writing, thoughts I was having during a week of having viewed Nightline's "Proof of God" debate, Jonathan Miller's A Brief History Of Disbelief, and having listened to Christopher Hitchens plug his book, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, on Charlie Rose. All in one week. It was as if the atheist planets had aligned--not on purpose, of course, but merely by random processes, over long periods of time, with no intention of any sort.

I have no illusions that a dyed-in-the-wool atheist will come across my posts and in a burst of light from Heaven, accompanied by the Hallelujah chorus, suddenly convert to Christianity. It doesn't work that way for most people. Apologetics(a defense for a belief system) does little to sway the masses. So, why engage in intellectual discussions with people from opposing viewpoints? What purpose does it serve?

It is important, not as an evangelistic tool aimed at the opposition, but as a way to give a thought-out defense for those who are making up their minds, or those who are left wondering about their faith when confronted with what seems like a good argument from the other side.

They can seem so daunting; these scientists, writers, and philosophers. They can clothe their arguments in fine words and turns of phrases, very articulately. It can seem intimidating to the average person. But there is really no need to fear.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Most Christians trying to give a semi-intelligent response to atheism, are pressed on every side to provide evidence for God. Some will respond that they don't need evidence; that's why it's called "faith"in God. Others will flounder about to try and glean what they can from science to defend their position.

In truth, many of the standards imposed by atheism are arbitrary. It implies that belief in something should only exist if there is measurable proof of it. This might work for math, physics and many of the hard sciences, but begin to move into biology, neuroscience, and sociological studies and there is a lot of grey uncertainty. That is the realm of Human existence.

Certain truths are self-evident. Perhaps they can be proved, perhaps not, but lack of proof does not necessarily negate them. Our country was founded on beliefs considered to be self-evident; that men were created equally and that they should not be tyrannically oppressed. Can we prove that every man is equal? Can we prove that tyranny is bad? No, we can't, but we still know it's true.

About a year ago, leafing through my newspaper, I came across a brief article. The headline read: Scientists Conclude Fish Feel Pain. I laughed as I thought about scientists hovering over aquariums in white lab coats, examining fish hooked up to electrodes and all manner of equipment. I thought it was funny simply because of the silliness of supposing that fish wouldn't feel pain for some reason. It was self-evident to me that of fish would feel pain. They have flesh, nervous systems, and flee certain death. Why wouldn't they feel pain? I had no scientific study to prove they feel pain. Should I have refused to form an opinion on something so obvious because scientists hadn't yet stamped their seal of approval on my assumption? That would be ridiculous.

Over the past few decades, we have learned more about animals and their level of intelligence and social interaction. We have discovered that primates behave much like people in certain situations; Ravens are quite intelligent and cunning; and animals can remember things for many years. It is really quite amazing.

Many years ago, scientists would have said we were reading into these behaviors, anthropomorphizing animals. Anyone with a pet, or who works with animals, knows differently. It is self-evident that animals have a certain level of intelligence, and even feelings. They may not be exactly like ours, but you can see it in the faithful dog that follows its master, in the chimpanzee that mourns the death of one of its group. Countless anecdotes are found among friends, relatives, and even mythological sources. Would those who claimed to believe such things have had no basis for their thoughts simply because science hadn't proved it? No.

There is a point at which discounting belief for lack of evidence becomes outlandish and lacking all sense.

Some might say that I am trying to use science to prove that we don't need science to support our beliefs. That is not the case. I am only using science to show that many beliefs can be held dear and be true long before any scientific evidence comes along to support it.

I am not calling for a rejection of using reason and understanding to examine our beliefs. Without some self-reflection and questioning, we can easily be led into bizarre beliefs and actions. However, we must throw off the self-imposed chains of meeting some extreme from of evidence before forming our opinions. It really isn't necessary, despite what atheism might claim.

Distrusting God

I am a distrustful person.

I try not to let people catch on to this cynical trait that lurks within me, lest I offend their sensibilities. I'm not mean or rude about it, but you can be sure I am secretly evaluating your trustworthiness as a person, especially if you have some sort of control or influence in my life. You're going to interact with my kids? Evaluation mode kicks into high gear. I'm going to join your church? Not until I have attended for many months and seen it from the inside out. You have a great investment opportunity for me? Let's see what Google has to say about you and your company.

Being suspicious has served me well at times. We live in a messed-up world in which people will shake your hand, reassure you, and blatantly lie to your face. A little distrust can go a long way in avoiding the most obvious charlatans.

Secretly, I wish I was a little less apprehensive about people and their motives. It's not easy always looking for the chink in the armor of others, especially if you find it. I would rather be suspicious and discover I am wrong, having to throw out my cynicism, than actually be right.

While discussing this with a friend, I remarked how innocent she was. She was kind, open, and gentle in her heart, seemingly non-judgemental about things. I meant it as a compliment, tinged with longing to possess some of those qualities. She took it as an insult. She didn't express her annoyance in any outward way, but the long hesitation, and the halting tone in her voice as she asked me what I meant, was clue enough. She had taken my description of innocence and trust as meaning simple and unsophisticated.

The suspicion that serves me so well in the everyday world does nothing for my spiritual life. In fact, it is antithetical to true faith in God.

In our earthly realm, we have good reason to mistrust our fellow wanderers. People can be a miserable lot; weak, selfish, and disloyal. Sifting through my own motivations has often exposed things I would rather bury under the sandy soil, hoping they would stay there like some forgotten pirate's treasure. It's disconcerting to realize that not only is the rest of the world off-kilter, but so are you.

Born into this crooked, impure world, we struggle with our hidden disability, a crippling skepticism about the goodness of others. Without intent, we are spiritually hindered by our handicap when approaching God. It seems, that after expressing belief in the forgiveness of our sins through Jesus, that we should be able to trust God as having only good things in store for us. Yet, over and over again some us go back to the well of wondering about his motivations. Does He really care about me, as an individual, and not as some tiny cog in the great churning machine of life? Does the evil that proliferates here on this planet bother Him? Why doesn't He do something about it already? We give more weight to the things before our eyes than to the character of our Creator.

It is Eve's first sin. Disbelief and distrust of what God said and of His very character.

You can't have faith and trust in a dubious God. Not only is it insulting to Him, but it is counterproductive to our spiritual life. Many sins and traps along our path begin with false beliefs about the nature of God. Thinking Him vindictive produces fear. Thinking Him uncaring produces apathy. Thinking Him ineffective and weak produces doubt.

Hebrews 11:6

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."

We are to believe not merely in His existence, but in His goodness. We must believe that He isn't a con man selling us a little snake oil, marketed as the Balm of Gilead, sure to cure our aches and pains for only $19.95. Assenting to His existence is great, but without belief in his goodness the company we keep is less than desirable:

James 2:19

You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

It's hard sometimes, isn't it? When things go awry and we're scraping through our emotions to find the faith that can so easily flit away from our grasp, trusting in God's ultimate goodness and purity can seem daunting. However, it is at these moments that we need to align our thinking to the reliability and unchanging nature of God. He is good. Always. In every way. At every time. Without fail.

Chuck your suspicion and mistrust at the door. He really isn't out to get you.

God Is Not The President

I realized that a few months before my conversion.

Raindrops slid down the window, in a haphazard journey to the windowsill, as I contemplated The Meaning Of Life one day. It was cold and grey outside. I don't remember what was churning in my thoughts as that insight swept over me, but I remember it with great clarity.

Insights like these peppered the months before I came to Christ. They were laying the ground-work for the beginning of my faith. Startling moments of unbidden perception would break into my mind at the strangest moments. Looking back, I can pick them out, bright sunflowers in fields of grass, popping up above the green, shouting, "Look over here! Notice me!"

It seems self-evident now. Of course God is not the president. We didn't get to install Him in the Heavenlies with a two-thirds vote, or even an electoral vote of 270. He just was. And is. And is to come.

And yet, I'm not sure that Americans apprehend this concept. Perhaps it's our rebellious, democratic nature. We have created a nation built on the principles of self-reliance, self-determination, and the pursuit of happiness. Making our image of God into a Sovereign King rubs us against the grain, bringing back visions of tea floating in the Boston Harbor, steeping in cold sea-water. We'd rather obliterate His rule over us by tossing our cargo away, than give him one penny of "taxation without representation." Never mind that we have a very good representative, that's for another post.

Much fist-shaking and shouting at the heavens is rooted in our spirits, scandalized by a lack of inclusion in the planning process. God can do as He pleases and we, poor saps that we are, have no recourse. He gets to do what He wants and we have to go along one way or the other.

Exactly.

Rebelling against such a repugnant idea, says less about God and more about us. First, it lays bare our fear of God's control of the Universe. We don't want to lack control, because then we are helpless to defend ourselves. Bad things might happen--the secret worry of everyone. Second, it implies that we would make much better choices than this Creator who's always butting into our business. He expects too much of us and makes unreasonable demands upon us, like some crazy, tyrant king sending his subject on a quest for some rose, that only blooms at midnight, on the sixth day of spring, at the top of a treacherous mountain in some distant land, 2,000 miles away. Third, it reveals our fear of being unimportant. If God doesn't need or want my input, then I must be like a fly buzzing about His head; small, irrelevant, and slightly annoying.

Not exactly.

Accepting God as Supreme Ruler, and not as Guy-Who-Least-Irritated-Us-And-Got-Our-Vote, aka The President, is not the fearful prospect it might seem. It hinges on the simple but profound acknowledgement of God's goodness, His unchanging nature of purity. It is a necessary component of our faith; one that impacts us in every aspect of our spiritual life.

to be continued tomorrow

Is Atheism Stuck In The Present?

I can't seem to escape atheism lately. It's on my TV, in the magazines I read, and proliferating online.

While blog-surfing the other day I clicked on a link that gave no indication that it was an atheist blog. Reading through the posts and comments was interesting, and I responded to one of them. One of the other commenter's statements set a tangential thought through my brain. He was expressing frustration that, when discussing atheism and evolution with non-atheists, things always come back to Ultimate Origins. He wanted the conversation to take place from The Big Bang and go forward from there. Well, there are a lot of reasons why that is simply ridiculous. You can't argue scientifically from a set of assumed facts that you haven't justified. I addressed some of my thoughts about The First Cause problem for atheists in an earlier post.

However, thinking about this commenter's remark, I realized the atheists' aversion to the past and the future. That may seem a silly assertion to make when considering atheists' attachment to evolution, the geologic record, and The Big Bang theory. After all, isn't the past the point from which most of their arguments are made?

Yes and no.

They do rely heavily on what they believe about the past formation of Earth and Life on Earth, but their arguments do not address the true beginning of the past--First Cause. Dwelling on the beginning of all things is uncomfortable because they have no scientific explanation for it. Instead, they begin to join the conversation in medias res.

So, why do I say that they also have an aversion to contemplating the future? It seems another silly statement when considering atheistic contributions to science fiction and speculations about what might happen to Earth and humanity in the future. They seem to look forward to the continuing evolution of man.

Yes, but the future is not solely about what will happen, but about where things are going. Evolutionists believe that natural selection is a process that is random and operates with no forethought or intelligence directing it. In this view, mutations and adaptations are meant for the here and now, not preparation for a different set of circumstances that will occur 50-100 years later. There is no "gearing-up" for the future of a species. To admit that mutations take the future into consideration would be to admit that something, other than physical matter, was operating. The ability to predict a set of circumstances that hasn't yet occurred, requires forethought and higher intelligence. While atheists would concede that humans possess the ability to speculate and accurately predict some future events, that is seen as a higher function that has evolved within us. If we go back into the past and try to assign that higher function to lower life forms or to a cellular level, evolutionists would be quick to attempt to obliterate such thoughts.


The past and the future are what give events meaning. The fact that we started somewhere, and are headed somewhere else, is what defines the Journey. But, of course, atheists would deny that there is any meaning to humanity's journey. Meaning implies purpose. Purpose implies intention. Intention can only come from a higher intelligence. Thus, to dwell too profoundly on where everything came from and where everything is going, would be uncomfortable for those who are assured in their own hearts that there is no Higher Intelligence.

Any opinions about this?

P.S....I am an evangelical Christian, but all of my posts about Atheism are being dealt with purely from a point of reason. I am not quoting Scripture, or trying to prove anything from the Bible, simply because it would be meaningless to someone who doesn't even believe there is such a thing as God.

Atheism and Proof of God...Part 3

Last night, I woke up around 3:30 am and couldn't get back to sleep. I goofed around on the computer for a few minutes and then laid down on the couch, turning on PBS. Ahhh PBS. What would I do without you? Your documentaries always have the calm, soothing monotone, of a gentle, male voice. I have gotten my best naps accompanied by various nature shows and scientific explorations. While awake, they are very fascinating; if drowsy, they are a one-way ticket to drool-inducing sleep.

Maybe the timing was coincidence, but there before my eyes was, A Brief History Of Disbelief, a show I had caught the last five minutes of just a couple of days ago. Considering all that I had already been pondering this week, it was like a nudge to my mind. The film is an exploration of the evolution of atheistic thought and development narrated by Jonathan Miller. It's fascinating.

I couldn't possibly post about all of the thoughts I had concerning Jonathan Miller's commentary--there were just too many.

Here's a brief rundown of things that I want to address in more thought-out posts:

• Is atheism the exclusive domain of "intellectually superior" white men? The most important thinkers quoted in the series were exclusively well-off, white, European men. Not much for the diversity of thought--this is only a minor thought that I had regarding the development of atheism.
• The assumed facts that are a starting point for atheism. There was a very interesting quote by Richard Dawkins, regarding natural selection and genetic mutations that really sent me over the edge, not for its outrageousness, but for its sheer illogicity from a supposed rational thinker.
• The place of intelligence, consciousness, and purpose in atheistic thinking. Despite all the "scientific" spin on atheism, this is really the heart of what most people must confront before embracing this philosophy.
• The role of evil and suffering in the world. Of course, volumes could be written on this subject alone. However, Miller made a claim that disbelief is so embraced today because of the relative comfort that science has given us. We are more in control of our lives than before, and therefore do not need any gods to alleviate our suffering.
• The focus of atheism aimed against Christianity as opposed to other belief systems. Atheism's venom is almost always aimed solely at Christianity.

There's a lot more swirling in my head, but it will take more time and research than I usually put into a blog post. So, I think that I will post sporadically on this subject as I cobble together the main point I'd like to make in a more refined way.

Nightline and Proof of God

Despite the fact that I should have already been in bed, I was still awake last night at 11:30 watching Nightline.

Part of the program was a very truncated presentation of a debate between "The Rational Response Squad," a self-appointed group of atheists that have come up with The Blasphemy Challenge--a website that encourages people to deny the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit--and Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, christian evangelists-- actor and author respectively.

The debate took at least 90 minutes, but I think ABC only showed about 5 minutes of it.

Trying to prove that God exists to an atheist is really an exercise in futility. By the time a person boldly declares themselves an atheist, they usually have their minds made up; otherwise, they would simply call themselves agnostic or say that they don't "think" that there is a God.

But anyway....

Ray Comfort's main point, featured on the show, was that creation itself is an indicator that there is a God. He held up a painting, stating that the painting itself is proof that there was a painter that created it. The painting could not exist without the painter. At this point, Brian Sapient tried to discredit this point by saying that if creation warrants a Creator, then who created God? Who is the creator of the eternal being?

What bugs me most about atheists' thinking is that it is so often illogical and hypocritical in its application. For instance, asking who created God and of course not being able to get an answer that makes any sense to the human mind, an atheist will very smugly think that he has struck a fatal blow to religious belief. ("Haha! You can't tell me where God came from! That must mean He isn't real and you are just an irrational idiot!") However, people of faith already know that they can't understand the paradox of God's eternal existence and nature, so this question is not a real challenge to their faith.

What smug atheists often fail to do is to use their own logic on their beliefs. If you believe there is no God, and that matter is the only guiding force in the Universe, you must still reconcile those beliefs with the Beginning Of All Things. The Big Bang, physics, and evolution are fine ways to try and observationally look at the material world and create a framework for understanding, but they too must try and explain the Beginning. The question that atheists can't explain, any more than Christians, is where it all came from. If we rewind everything back to The Big Bang--a time in which every atom that exists was compressed and contained in a tiny space no bigger than a period--you still have to ask.......where did matter come from? If it wasn't created, what was there before The Big Bang? It is the atheist version of "Who created God?"

They can't explain it any more than we can.

This inability to explain where matter came from also trickles down into the theory of evolution. Evolution is based on the assumption of life starting at a bacterial, micro-organism level, and over billions of years, producing very complicated organisms. Yet evolution still cannot explain how inert matter and atoms were imbued with life. How does a chemical, primordial soup transform into a living form, focused on "surviving." Survive what? If chemicals suddenly sprung to life, how could they know that there would be "death?" How does a one-celled organism fear no longer living when only moments before it was an inanimate molecule?

Bah!

An atheist cannot answer any of these questions. Their belief system is full of holes and requires as much faith as any Christian's. The difference between the two is that atheists are loathe to admit the inconsistencies in their thinking. They cling tightly to their versions of truth, science, and rationality, but seem to lose all rationality trying to explain the First Cause of everything. They don't understand the why and how of the universe any more than a simple believer.

Science is their God. The only problem is that Science is not perfect and the emperor has no clothes.

**afterthought**

Isn't it interesting that the focus of The Rational Response Squad is focused solely on Christianity? Their blasphemy challenge has nothing to do with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Also, why do atheists always seem to be so angry? Every time I encounter an online discussion or see something on TV, atheists always come off as extremely angry, outraged people. Maybe I'll post about it later.