Nov 24, 2009
An argument for the non-existence of God that’s giving me persistent trouble these days.
It seems far-fetched that God invented a system in which a reasonable/rational/sane person can deny “ultimate reality.”
…
What’s troubling you?
Subscribe to 22 Words
Recent Comments
- Will on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
- Stephen May on It’s not a slide, it’s a proto-steampunk ghetto park bench for one.
- Stephen May on Who or whom? A clear, simple answer from a professional grammarian
- Stephen May on Elitists in Minnesota town Lino Lakes approve English-only resolution
- Will Adair on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
Sponsors
Categories
- Arts in General (24)
- Bible (66)
- Blogging (153)
- Brevity (25)
- Constructive Criticism (268)
- Faith (210)
- Food & Drink (54)
- Language (214)
- Literature (104)
- Love (86)
- Miscellanea (286)
- Movies (14)
- Music (155)
- parenting (153)
- Personal (182)
- Questions (255)
- Quotes (41)
- Recommendations (129)
- Sports (8)
- Uncategorized (8)
- Visual Art (27)
- Writing (56)
Archives
- July 2010 (107)
- June 2010 (79)
- May 2010 (89)
- April 2010 (62)
- March 2010 (21)
- February 2010 (25)
- January 2010 (32)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (63)
- October 2009 (45)
- September 2009 (40)
- August 2009 (40)
- July 2009 (40)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (47)
- April 2009 (51)
- March 2009 (40)
- February 2009 (31)
- January 2009 (44)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (54)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (41)
- August 2008 (45)
- July 2008 (51)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (66)
- April 2008 (74)
- March 2008 (71)
- February 2008 (19)
Reader Recommendations
Some of the books and music that you, the readers, have recommended here over time:
Twitter Recommendations
Theme based on Derek Punsalan's Grid Focus.
Actually, Jared Wilson just brought it up on Evangel. What I’ve been struggling with is the difference and separation between justification and sanctification; that the “work” of salvation is, and has been, accomplished by Jesus Christ and that our feeble participation in the process of sanctification is, and should be, simply a by-product of the new inner creature we have become. Been reading Bonhoeffer’s “Cost of Discipleship” and really struggling with where he comes from with Cheap/Costly Grace as it seems to set up a system of participatory redemption… but I can’t refute his logic. :)
Check out Willard. Love his stuff on discipleship and involvement in the transformation process.
G.C. Berkouwer’s Faith and Sanctification is a really good (but technical) in-depth discussion of the relationship between justification and sanctification. My experience with the book was that it brought a lot of light and clarity to the issue for me.
What’s up with dinosaurs? It seems like their bones are in the ground to trick us out of believing in creation.
I just have to say that I find it odd that dinosaurs are real but the idea of unicorns (essentially a horse with a horn on its head) are fake. It sort of makes me sad. Not enough to get me to doubt God but enough to make me just a little bitter.
Uh, who said dinosaurs are fake?
Job 40-41
Um, no one said they are fake.
There’s more than one good biblically plausible theory of creation. Check out stuff by John Sailhammer.
Or perhaps the pope is right and the story of creation is a fable God uses to teach us. Evolution is the method God used to create life, since it allows for enormous diversity and he doesn’t need to break any of the laws he set.
almost every non-Christian i know right now thinks that *not* believing humans evolved from lower life forms is ridiculous. the idea doesn’t always seem so farfetched to me, either, but i also realized i actually know practically nothing about the theory of evolution. now i feel obligated to find out and deal with it.
I know a lot of Christians who think that not believing humans evolved from lower life forms is ridiculous. A one-verse refutation: Romans 5:12.
I’ve always loved that verse in relation to the theistic evolution vs creation debate
I love that. And I have to say that all of the theistic evolution believers i know know very little about evolution, and therefore don’t think about what it implies about God’s character and what the Bible says. If God used death to create the world, then the wages of sin ISN’T death,and God lied to us…
Dinosaurs confuse me a little (mostly dating strategies). “Prehuman” fossils confuse me more. I read a lot about ecology, which almost always includes an evolutionary element. I still appreciate the beauty of creation more when I read these books, though, even when they credit evolution. Where the Wild Things Were (Life, Death, and Ecological Wreckage in a World of Vanishing Predators) is what I just finished, and it provides a fascinating look at the order of nature and its need for predation. It’s beautiful to me that God created balance in nature (which arguably human sprawl is destroying) even after the fall necessitated bloodshed between species…
Working in the criminal justice field is tough for a variety of reasons, though, too…
“Dating strategies of dinasours”. That idea took a much different form in my mind, and made me laugh…out loud. What strategies did dinasours employ for getting dates? Was a meteor shower and eating a few cavemen their equivelant to dinner and a movie? Yeah, God must exist.
science uses circular reasoning for dating. the fossil is dated from the rock it is found in, and the rock has been dated from the fossils found in it.
Personally, I’ve always thought that an argument for the non-existence of something is ultimately self-defeating — kind of like not seeing the forest for the trees. Of course, those who would make such an argument deny the notion that man’s reason, rationality, and sanity are just as corrupted by sin as anything else.
I agree completely. the logic fails at the definition of sane and rational.
I think perhaps you guys are confusing “argument” with “proof.”
In this context, then, what’s the point/value of “argument” other than to guide an individual toward “proof”?
Proof only exists in Math. Evidence and argument lead to probabilities. Following evidence and argument led me to accept that probably there is no god.
Based on this logic, everything exists. Xenu and reincarnation, for instance.
By “far-fetched” do you mean “unlikely to be true?” If so, what is your basis for calculating likelihood when describing the whole system of everything that exists? It’s not like we can look at other universes and see that usually God reveals himself differently if he exists. But maybe I’m being overly empirical.
Many people who are passionate about their faith, aren’t passionate about sharing it. Is God (and His plan of salvation) actually the center of their faith or is their faith really just to bring comfort to their own lives?
“Sir, I do not share your faith. But if I did – if I believed what you say you believed – then although England were covered with broken glass from coast to coast, I would crawl the length and breadth of it on hand and knee and think the pain worthwhile, just to save a single soul from this eternal hell of which you speak.” ~Charles Peace
Abraham,
The reason you state in your post is exactly what is giving me trouble at the moment. I have a father-in-law who is a biochemist, has a Phd in that area, and does research for a major university and the federal government. All that to say, he thinks like a scientist because he is one.
“It seems far-fetched that God invented a system in which a reasonable/rational/sane person can deny “ultimate reality.”
This past weekend my in-laws visited us in Chicago. We were out to eat dinner and my mother-in-law asked me what the difference was between what she believes and what I believe (she is Roman Catholic who does not practice). I took the opportunity to talk about justification and how one is right before God.
All this while my father-in-law sat next to me. Once I had articulated the gospel he had a question. It was, “If God is really there and loving, why would he discriminate against ones with more rational minds?” In other words, why has God not revealed Himself in a way that makes sense to the scientist?
My response was that God has not discriminated. He has revealed Himself in the same way to all men. He has revealed Himself through creation and His Word. Both he and I are presented with the same truth, we simply come to different conclusions.
This was not a satisfactory answer to him, and in truth, leaves me short as well. I do think, however, that the truth is there and it is not a matter of intellectual capability or wiring, but a matter of God who sovereignly opens the eyes of whom He pleases.
Romans 1:18-23
v19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Our mind, broken by the Fall, wars against the eternal. It is only by the mercy and grace of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, will of the Father and blood of Christ that we are saved.
For some, like Paul and Isaiah, God pulled out all the stops in revealing his glory. For others, like C.S. Lewis, it was relentless pursuit by the intellect.
“For others, like C.S. Lewis, it was relentless pursuit by the intellect.”
Yet when intellect meets knowledge it most often results in a turning away from belief.
Intellect with out knowledge is like a race car without wheels. You can have a powerful engine but with out something to apply that power to, It is useless.
When intellect is applied to the knowledge gained by our senses and the instruments we’ve built it is more usual than not to find no place for gods and spirits. Those with the most knowledge and the greatest intellects are the least likely to believe in God.
Good answer. My thought is that faith has very little to do with how “reasonable/rational/sane” you are, but more with how you respond to Christ. Faith isn’t found primarily in the intellect.
Pride can manifest itself in any mind – smart people are particularly suceptable.
“God who sovereignly opens the eyes of whom He pleases.”
This sounds like discrimination to me. Is your father-in-law a good man?
Is he deserving of eternal torture because god did not reveal himself in a way he could understand.
Is the failing his or gods.
Like me your Father-In-Law must have came to a point where his understanding of the world from evidence and reason showed him God was not necessary for the world to exist.
Without evidence that would meet the strict criteria of science the simplest theory is that there is no God. In fact an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is a logical contradiction. Therefore he must not exist.
If you study the knowledge our species has amassed and how it was collected so you understand the truth of it. You will come to this conclusion as well. It seems illogical that complex thinking humans had no creator. This is how the creationists frame it to make it seem silly. Until you understand the steps it took us to get here. Each step logically builds on all the previous steps. It is all logically consistent and backed by evidence. Geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics all interconnect and agree to make a consistent whole. Like a puzzle where all the pieces fit.
I would imagine that God, knowing all past, present, and future (and all of the possibilities), would know if any amount of revelation from Himself to a person would convince them of His existence, sovereignty, etc. I would also imagine that if He knew it wouldn’t, He wouldn’t bother to reveal Himself any differently than He already has to everyone… because He knows it wouldn’t do anything.
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” – C. S. Lewis
If your purpose/value (like the theory of evolution) is to show how life could have originated completely naturally, you’re going to interpret all data through that lens. (If it didn’t happen this way, it must’ve happened a different way. But it still happened.) If your purpose/value is to show just how amazing God’s creation is, you’ll interpret data through that lens.
And I’d just like to throw this out there: God operates outside of natural laws all the time. Like a virgin birth? Or fire coming down from heaven and consuming stone. Or people who have rapidly spreading cancer that disappears in days or hours. They’re called miracles. God’s not bound to natural laws, because He’s supernatural.
Wouldn’t the answer to you your problem be that the “noetic effects” of sin make our rational faulty, and that’s why we are told to renew our minds? So regeneration is the key for true rationality and (for the most part) thinking well. Just my shot at it… :)
Perhaps this is the greatest tragedy of the fall. In God’s initial creation, it would have been impossible for reasonable/rational/sane person to deny ultimate reality. Sin has marred the creature to a degree where ultimate reality must be revealed to him in order for him to know it. I guess we could call that regeneration/new birth.
The Fall changes everything.
Good point. But then the question becomes, “Why would an all-powerful, perfectly good God ordain the fall if it would result in a system in which a reasonable/rational/sane person can deny ‘ultimate reality?’” Essentially, the problem of evil.
I’m struggling with: If I never conquer the sins of fear, worry and not feeling complete security in Christ, what does that say about my salvation?? I want to conquer all of these things. It is my hearts desire, but if I don’t, does that mean I am not truly regenerated? Can someone please help me with this? Abraham, maybe your father has some words of wisdom for me on this.
Hi Kaye,
I hope this helps. Rest in His sufficiency for your belief, while you battle the fear and anxiety.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/41/2427_Is_there_a_place_for_worriers_in_the_church/
Dear Kaye,
I believe that assurance is a very important part of our salvation, but it isn’t something that you can conjure up. It comes from the Spirit of God. However, your lack of assurance doesn’t mean that you don’t have the spirit of God, or that you are lost. I know, in the past, when I have felt that way, I concentrated on the promises of God. We must continue to read and trust what God has said about us.
I encourage you to keep seeking, keep knocking, keep asking, and never give up! We do that by Reading and meditating on the Word, Prayer, Fellowshiping with other believers, and if there is known sin, repenting of it. Kaye, our God is able and has an abundance of mercy for you. And most of all “for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.”
In Christian Love,
Mike M.
doubts?
1. If the earth is 6 billion years old, why did God wait and unveil His plan of redemption in the last 6 thousand years? Seems odd.
2. the lack of tangible hope in the midst of suffering sometimes troubles me.
I’ll stop there for now.
The unreliability of the Bible as presented in “Jesus Interrupted” by Bart Ehrman.
Emily–
Ehrman vastly overstates his case, precisely to drive Christians to doubt. There’s a good review by a really solid NT scholar here that takes apart a lot of his argument.
(Please don’t take me as belittling your doubts; I’m trying to encourage your faith. This stuff is challenging.)
I think Ehrman’s points are devastating to any kind of biblical infallibility and certainly casts much doubt on whether the Bible is accurate about its claims about Jesus.
Every scholar knows the biblical manuscripts we have are fallible and have scribal insertions & errors, which is why conservative scholars say only the *original* manuscripts were infallible. This puts them out of reach of criticism since we don’t have those. It’s a position of faith.
But I’m curious — does that make you doubt God, or only Christianity? For me it started out with Christianity, and it took a while to be willing to consider there might not be a Creator.
Neither. It just troubles me.
i struggle with the idea that the majority of the people in the world are going to hell. i dont struggle to believe that is true, i know its true, i just struggle in why God wouldn’t have made it the reverse, that most people would be saved and only a few would go to hell.
I struggle with God’s seemingly inefficient plan for the world and salvation: Allow suffering, pain, and death for thousands of years and then only save some people through the barbaric death of his own son.
Why not just start from scratch after Adam fell? And why require his son to die? God would have been just as glorious has he saved the elect by snapping his fingers.
But would he have been seen to be as glorious in such a schema? Or does the preference of his people for him over the alternatives of the world display his glory more fully? And doesn’t (Rom 9) his display of wrath against unbelievers also contribute to his being glorified (rather than more more glorious) in his people?
Dylan-
I would say that whatever God does is, by definition, glorious. And was Adam and Eve’s appreciation of God pre-fall less glorious because they had no alternative?
God’s actions are glorious because He is glorious. Agreed.
I would readily agree that Adam & Eve’s prefall appreciation of God glorified God. But I’m trying to be faithful to the logic of Romans 9. My short-form version is that God is better/more thoroughly glorified when He puts himself more fully on display through redemptive history than if he hadn’t.
Jared,
The inefficiency of salvation is a really interesting point. It seems to me that if we start down the path towards embracing God’s sovereignty in and over all things (election, sin, suffering, etc), we’ll logically come to embrace God’s design for creation as being optimally created to bring Himself the most glory. Otherwise, we’ll go nuts.
In one sense, it’s easy to say, “OK, I’m sure He knows better.” In another sense, it’s a hard question to just sit with: “Really, this is really the best/optimal way to bring God the most glory?”
I don’t know fully how to deal with the above. But as to your question and statement (“why require his son to die? God would have been just as glorious had he saved the elect by snapping his fingers”), I think we can use Jesus’ raising Lazarus from the dead as a proxy to see how Jesus received more glory from waiting and letting Lazarus die than either healing him on the spot or preventing his illness in the first place.
John 11:14, 40: “Lazarus has died, and for you sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe…Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
God’s glory was more important to Jesus, for our sake, than Lazarus’ life. The same could be said for Jesus’ life.
John 13:31: “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.”
All in all, I still join you in your struggle.
Well put, Chris.
Chris- Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I think it boils down to, as you say, “OK, I’m sure He knows better.” That’s where faith comes into play. If God’s plan was the logical end product of an equation, then there wouldn’t be much faith involved.
That said, from an intellectual standpoint, it’s still a very troubling point of Christianity for me.
I’d question the assumption that there are “reasonable/rational/sane” people that deny ultimate reality.
I think of those who deny ultimate reality as “futile in their thinking,” (Rom 1:21-23), having “blinded minds” (2 Cor 4:4) and being “foolish in their wisdom” (1 Cor 1:20-25).
They may appear reasonable/rational/sane but they are not, in actuality, what they appear.
I see what you’re getting at, but with the normal, generally-accepted understanding of sanity, non-Christians are sane.
An atheist is not in the same category as someone who denies the existence of gravity, say.
They might be wrong, but they’re not wackos.
Maybe they are wackos. I’m not saying we should treat them like that… but the inspired inerrant Word of God says that they are futile thinkers and don’t have true wisdom…
Isn’t that pretty wack?
You know, maybe — just maybe — calling me a wacko isn’t the best way to get me to consider your perspective.
Dan,
I can’t speak for LeL but personally, I have no desire to refer to any unbeliever in a disparaging or demeaning way.*
With that said, if the message of Jesus Christ (aka the gospel) is true, then it inherently requires us to believe that people are broken. One could insert a number of adjectives in place of “broken” and mean them objectively rather than pejoratively: sinful, flawed, rebellious regarding God, etc.
The gospel is inherently insulting and presenting the gospel to unbelievers is inherently to insult them. To present the gospel is to say, “I have good news for someone in need of help–you.” It’s like a doctor presenting help to a patient. It implies that there’s something wrong with the patient.
*My desire is to avoid insulting unbelievers by any means or attitude beyond the gospel. I’m absolutely certain I fail at this. To use the above medical analogy, I want to present the “cure or prescription for health” in a truthful, compelling way. To do so requires honesty about the disease or illness. Suppose the patient was unhealthily overweight. I’d prefer to use terms like “unhealthily overweight” rather than “fatty” or “blimp.”
I want the offense to come from the content of what I say rather than how I say it (words, attitude, etc.). Again, I’m certain I fail at this regularly. I’m sorry for that and will continue, by God’s grace, to attempt to live in closer alignment with the ideal.
Ultimately, who defines sanity? Noah, among the people of his day, must have been considered insane for building a boat to protect himself and his family from a substance never seen before (rain). Turns out, Noah was the only sane one. The tables of sane/insane were turned upon the arrival of the first droplet. We, individually, cannot define what is considered insanity or illogical. We require an outside source. I can only think of one.
Dylan, are you saying that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational and/or insane, regardless of how intelligent and clear-thinking they may appear to be?
Only a small minority of the world’s population follows evangelical Christianity, so most people are crazy according to that way of thinking, including almost everyone in the many countries with little Christian presence.
Nowhere in Dylan’s statement, did I see anything that would imply that he thought anyone who was not an Evangelical Christian was irrational or insane.
I was requesting clarification on his post. He said that he “question[s] the assumption that there are ‘reasonable/rational/sane’ people that deny ultimate reality” but did not explain exactly what qualifies as “denying ultimate reality.”
If indeed he thinks that people can choose not to follow Christianity and yet still be rational and sane, I appreciate your correction.
To attempt clarification, as requested:
I’m assuming “ultimate reality” means God. I’m less clear now that Abraham intended that based on his response above in which he uses the example of gravity. It remains, however, the definition I’m working from.
So my post was focused on seemingly rational/sane people denying the existence of God. It seems to me that Scripture speaks of a sense in which, at least in the realm of our understanding of and response to God, we don’t respond in the way we would if not tainted by sin, the effects of sin, and the work of Satan.
I would readily admit, per Abraham’s comment above, that by common definition of sane/rational, there are unbelievers who are sane/rational. I’d suggest though, that the common, working definition of sane/rational is defined by how/what most people think which isn’t the ideal starting point.
I would not suggest that non-Christians or, more narrowly, non-evangelical-Christians are wackos.
I would say that non-Christians are spiritually blind and that their faculties are tainted. I would affirm this in two senses. First, as regards to Christ and the gospel. Second, in the broader sense of “Total or Radical Depravity.” In the latter sense, I think it remains true for Christians as well as non-Christians until sanctification is complete–not in this life.
In the former sense, the only way to overcome the difficulty is for God to take the initiative to regenerate us and make us new.
pls define ultimate reality
Abigail: Thank you so much for that link. That really gave me hope and right now, I desperately need hope.
Mike: Thank you as well. That is powerful and Godly advice and wisdom. I am doing those things everyday. I am staying in Gods word and relying on it to hold me and keep me.
Bless you both! I so appreciate your words of encouragement, more than you know.
Abraham: by definition, in that system, one who denies ultimate reality is not reasonable. Romans 1 clearly states this. I’m not trying to say, “Come on, don’t doubt. That’s dumb.” I’m just saying, that Romans 1 does clearly state that everyone knows that God exists and if they don’t know God exists it’s because they are suppressing the Truth. Therefore, they are not reasonable. Your definition of “reasonable” contains a faulty presupposition.
Age of the Earth doubters, I very highly recommend the very readable and gentle “Redeeming Science” by Vern Poythress. For those of you whose doubts arise from science, this book is a must-read. You will find that many of your doubts about God’s plan and the Bible, contain really base-less presuppositions about the ultimacy of science. Perhaps your legitimate fear of becoming one of those uneducated, back-water, “I heart Jesus” t-shirt-wearing, Bible-belt Christans… is keeping you from questioning science? I don’t know.
What I do know is that doubt is a funny thing. Doubt shows critical thinking and exposes unbelief at the same time. So if you truly want to keep the good and get rid of the bad, you’ve got to read books by people who have been down that route and have had time to study a lot of things you don’t have time to study. (I am assuming that one is asking God via prayer to reveal Himself more and more as well.)
Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll be checking that one out.
What do you mean by “Ultimate reality”?
Another semantics issue? Jesus Worshipers enjoy those, and non believers get headaches.
I also wrestle with what seems to be a dichotomy between a truly, logical regression back to causality of evil using our understanding of justice (i.e. condemnation without cause seems unjust) and what I would consider to be a clear teaching in Scripture of God’s sovereignty over evil in ordaining that it be, and by ordaining that it be, ensuring that it come to pass.
It requires the two wills of God (He desires all to be saved, but some do not believe because they are not part of His flock) and God’s two views of sin (He hates all who do evil, but He also ordains that their evil be). And I suppose it requires an acknowledgment of a justice that is beyond our understanding, leaving all proponents of God’s sovereignty in election at the edge of rationality saying, “I have come to this edge and can go no more; what lies beyond is a mystery too great for me to know.”
What a glorious place to be in faith. And what a frustrating place to be without it.
I think Dawkins makes a challenging point when he says something to the extend of, “You say it’s improbable that the universe would just come into existence or that it has always existed. But if that is so, then it’s far more improbable for an infinite, eternal, loving, just god to always be in existence. If we are talking about improbabilities, your position is infinitely improbable by definition if it’s an infinite being.”
Also, the fact that God always speaks through other people, and never seems to speak to anyone himself (other than the crazies) makes me doubt. Why did he interact with people when everyone was superstitious, by now that we have recording devices and such he never seems to show up?
Oh and evolution. Why would God use such a wasteful, violent, inefficient process? It seems completely unguided.
And then there’s the fact that there are so many religions which similar claims and all have the same shaky evidence. Why wouldn’t God just say “this is the right one” and make it so the evidence is so compelling it wouldn’t even be an issue?
To your last point… he did.
He went to a moon-worshipper and said, “This is how it’s going down.” And it’s stayed true for 6,000 years… Am I missing something here?
The Israelites DID SEE and HEAR Him!
They melted their gold down and worshipped an animal instead!
Solomon DID HEAR Him… He asked for wisdom and God was like, “Well done, wisdom AND riches.”
And then Solomon blatantly disregarded the laws for kings taking multiple wives and… then he went off the deep end, leading Israel into a civil war and it was fractured forever…
I could go on.
Your assumption are faulty. We have dozens of examples of people who interacted with God and they rejected Him. And it wasn’t just to the crazies.
…and all the other religions have similar stories in their holy books.
I’m glad you mentioned that Dan!
I’ve got my “Sacred Texts of the World: A Universal Anthology” right here.
Let’s see… I’m having difficulty finding a story that says that the only way to Heaven is by faith… I’m seeing a lot of works here… Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, Shintoism… all works-based righteousness…
So no similar stories to the Gospel there.
Did you mean, perhaps, the Epic of Gilgamesh? Yeah, it is crazy how there is another ancient story about a flood that destroyed the whole world. The only part that gets me is the polytheism… can’t find that anywhere in Genesis.
Also, here are 4 major distinctions between the Bible and all other Ancient Near-East stories (the stories I believe you are referring to):
1. Monotheism vs. Polytheism
2. The Bible claims creation was from nothing, Near East claims gods created out of something.
3. Near East stories have no mention or reference to/of the image of God.
4. No personal relationship with god or gods in the Near East stories.
Sorry Dan. I didn’t mean to be harsh. I apologize.
I am very tired of that claim that “all the stories are the same”… it’s just not true, and every year, thousands of professors across this country tell their students that lie, and I’ve personally seen a few people walk away from Christianity because of that lie.
But, now I have read most of those “other stories”… and they might have smiliarities but they aren’t the same, by any means.
Sorry for being so intense about it.
I wasn’t saying all the stories are the same. I’m pretty well versed in the stories. My point is that all religions have *stories* explaining why their religion is correct. You point back to ancient Jewish myths — Mormons point back to stories in the Book of Mormon and Muslims point back to stories in the Koran.
And my overarching point was that God should have made it so we know those stories were true so we were not arguing about it. But he didn’t. Which is why people argue. It’s not because their stupid or wackos or blind, it’s because they don’t want to accept something without reliable evidence.
faith. there always has to be an element of faith in our relationship with God. If God made it absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt clear, we wouldn’t need faith. This isn’t to say that He remains in the dark, because He has given us enough to go on, but it all comes down to faith.
Basically, we’re all in agreement that all of this would be a lot easier to understand if the Bible had come with a “Silmarillion”…? Am I right, or what?
You could put the whole Satan’s Rebellion thing in there… and being cast out of Heaven… and why God decided to not start over in Genesis 3…. it would be awesome.
Anyway… just trying to brighten things up a bit:)
Silly as it may seem, this is mine: Are parasitic worms part of God’s design, or a result of the fall? What will happen to them in the new creation? Will they be non-parasitic, or will they be destroyed?
I wrestle with this for 2 reasons:
1. There are some unique problems with saying they are a result of the fall. Did they not exist before the fall? How did the fall produce them? They’re not like cancer, which I believe will be non-existent in heaven. These are living, created animals that wreak havoc on the earth, not just a “malfunction” of created order.
2. If they are part of God’s design, what was their original intention? Were they designed pre-fall to feed on living organisms (like a human’s eyeball)? If they weren’t originally designed to do that, do we then say that they are “fallen” worms? See problem 1.
What am I missing here?
Did you know that there is a parasitic worm that is “designed” to live in the eye of humans and baboons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa_filariasis
The entire world is designed around one thing: death. Life on earth without death makes no sense, because everything is designed to take life in some way — slowly (like parasites) or fast (everything else). Teeth in carnivores are meant to tear flesh. Mosquitoes needles are meant to suck blood. Etc.
And even in couple months without death, the earth would be so full of species we wouldn’t be able to move!
It just doesn’t make sense.
If “life” and “survival” is the way we measure the success of the universe, then yes, none of that makes sense at all.
However, according to the Bible, the ultimate aim of the universe is not life… it is God’s glory.
So within a Biblical worldview, the fact that you and I could not survive for a second in 90% of the universe is not hard to swallow. It wasn’t created for us. It was created for God.
If the whole world is designed around DEATH, how did LIFE evolve? How was genetic information produced from nothing?
I know, I know. Mosquitoes and Parasitic worms are perplexing when it comes to theology, but completely doubting God as creator because of this??
I know atheists usually hate for believers to claim that they have faith, but it would take an ENORMOUS leap of faith to believe that this world came from nothing without God. It’s illogical.
I didn’t claim that was my only reason. Consider it a bonus.
I presume they will be non-parastic. Consider cats (domestic and large): they are obligate carnivores. They cannot meet their nutritional needs through beans, pumpkin, wheat, or any scientific formulation of plant stuff. There’s a whole stack of creatures, not just parasitic worms, who will be changed…
Their original intention must have been something other than parasitic, just like gloriously fierce felines were not meat eating before death…
the silence of god and then how we as christians explain god’s silence by saying: “well, god either says: ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘wait’ so apparently now, he’s saying ‘wait.’”
What about the argument gives you trouble? Just curious, because I see troubling things with that argument.
Sin is powerful. As believers, how many times do we believe the lies of sin. How much more the spiritually dead?
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity connot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence. The uncaused cause is God, the eternal Creator and Sustainer of the universe. The people that do not believe in God are indeed supressing the truth (Romans 1) because they love their sin more than they love God.
God allowed the fall of mankind to show all of His attributes, we would not know His mercy without the Fall.
Why would we not know his mercy without the fall? If God created us, he could do with us what he pleases, such as give us the power to understand him without needing a fall and a bloody crucifixion.
There are plenty of non-christians – whether they are believers in other gods, or no gods – who still have no belief in god. I am one of those people. I don’t love my “sin” over God. Firstly, I don’t love to do bad. And secondly, I can’t love anything over a god I don’t think exists.
I don’t understand your claim, “otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity connot be crossed.” How is infinity… crossing infinity? And why is it logical to say there must be a first cause? Is it logical to you because here on this earth, we’ve only lived with elements that must have a causer? Because there are indeed elements that arise with no cause, and just because you can’t fathom an uncaused cause or infinity doesn’t make it an impossibility.
On infinity.. Imagine a number line that goes from negative infinity, has a mark at zero, then goes to positive infinity. The distance from negative infinity to zero (a concrete point) is infinity. If the universe is infinite (negative infinity), and the earth had a beginning (zero), you have to cross infinity to get from negative infinity to zero… which only works in math problems and not in real life.
It’s logical to say there was a first cause because 1) The Earth is definitely concrete (we live on it), 2)an infinite amount of time never ends, and never arrives anywhere concrete because it’s infinite. There’s no destination. Therefore 3)since the earth is concrete, and infinite things never arrive at concrete things, The concrete Earth (and universe) could not have ever been infinite.
And for those who believe solely in natural laws, this shouldn’t be an issue because it’s based on natural laws. The only way there could be an uncaused cause would be if the uncaused cause was not bound to natural laws … if it was supernatural.
The idea that the Holy Spirit (God) is the one who gives us faith to trust in the gospel.
For therefore, the very faith that justifies us in his eyes, is given to us by Him.
All the religions that exist in the world, that each feel themselves to be the best revelation of the Divine. When do religions stop being a cultural construct and start being truth?
Why did God, according to the standard definition, need to create us in the first place?
My faith is challenged by adversities because the experiences for the moment are long and painful. However, all I have to do is look at creation to get a billboard reminder of God’s existence: planets, stars, water, air, trees, animals, and people. How did all of these things come to be and what is holding everything together? I’m sure that science can explain much of what we observe, but why do these scientific laws exist? It has occurred to me that all science is the “study of” something and that mankind makes scientific “discoveries”. All this means is that we used the tools and information laid out before us and pieced them together in meaningful and useful ways. I honestly believe the true work of scientists is the uncovering of how smart God truly is.
AMEN!!! I can relate to the challenge of faith due to horrible pain and suffering. And I agree completely with the confirmation of God’s existence through creation. We MUST believe in God’s role as intimate creator for our faith to not be shaken (for long, anyway!).
I struggle with how falible men can decide what is the infallible word without somehow sounding like a Catholic. If the deciders were speaking for the entire church for all time, in a post-apostlic period, why can’t we say these utterances still occur?
I am a hard-core 5 point neo-puritan, but I have never really found a good simple explanation that I can pass on, especially when I am preaching in the Philippines.
It troubles me when someone says, “If God puts on your heart to pray for someone, don’t call up a friend to agree in prayer together for them, just pray for them yourself,” because they think that praying for others is gossip.
I hope that if my marriage is ever in trouble, or I struggle with sins, or my kids are going through something hard, or whatever the matter may be , that my friends will pray TOGETHER for us.
Matthew 18:19-20 “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
I’m grateful when people pray WITH me, but I’m also thankful when people pray FOR me.
You asked what’s bugging us so here goes. I am really bugged by the fact that all forms now do not have a box for the salutation “MISS.” I am not a MRS and abhor being called MS as coined by the womens’ lib movement. Am I just picky or does this bother anyone else?
GOD BLESS AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING. Thanks for the story about your in-laws.
The Bible does not say we are reasonable, rational, and sane. It says that before God’s grace saves us, we are depraved.
Hey gang, just wanted to drop by and let you know that I did just put those bones there to confuse you! Sorry, guys! J.C. thought it’d be funny.
Perhaps the people here that say they are troubled and confused by things like dinosaur bones and the story of how the Bible was written and put together should think about this: Yes, dinosaur bones, and evolution ARE confusing if you try and reconcile that with the bibles claims. You can interpret the scripture all you want, but the mere fact that you are interpreting it, immediately puts a freeze on any guaranteed truth to it. You’ve now put your own take on the scripture. You, not the writer.
But when you look at dinosaur bones and evolution through science – it DOES make sense! Perhaps you are troubled because these new revelations give you reason to doubt there’s a God. And perhaps that in turn means there’s no heaven. But it also means there’s no hell. So while you may worry that you’ll never get into heaven because it doesn’t exist, you can stop worrying about possibly suffering in hell for eternity because that isn’t real either.
And really, if you have the Bible memorized (an almost impossible task, I admit. I can’t do it either) then you’ll remember the Bible has a lot to say about how difficult it is to get into heaven. Take for instance this gem in Revelations 7:2-4 -
“[2]Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, [3] saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads.” [4] And I heard the number of the sealed, a 144,000 sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel”
Yes, only 144,000 will ever make it into heaven. Now, this passage may give you trouble. And you may try and interpret it how you want to, you may think this passage is just metaphorical. But this all makes the most sense when you stand back and realize none of it’s real. In addition, if you side with the idea that it’s metaphorical, how do you decide that this passage is metaphorical, but other passages aren’t?
I can’t stress it enough… the only way to make sense of all of these issues you have when learning about new studies in science, and issues you have with scripture, is to realize it isn’t real. But that doesn’t mean you’re left with depressing nothingness. Read up on what atheists and non-believers are doing with their lives, it’s wonderful!
I’m sorry, this was well beyond twenty-two words.
Yikes, Dan. It is no minor offence to deny the existence of God. I hope and pray you change your mind! I JUST listened to an awesome on-line sermon which explains creation and dispels evolution, and it MAKES SENSE! I invite you to watch it, too. I’m eager to watch the next one in the series this evening, as it will touch on the creation of dinosaurs, etc. The website is http://www.calvaryabq.tv/live/?ServiceID=737
Sin is insanity.
I haven’t read many of the responses, but the person above me (#38) hits it right on the head. Because of the fall, none of us are in our “right minds.” We have all become quite less than human. The argument above is formulated in what is no longer ‘ultimate reality’ but ‘fallen reality’ and the ‘reasoning’ being used is fallen reasoning. The ‘troubling’ part is not that some *deny* ‘ultimate reality’ – but that ANY are able to embrace it…
That’s the miracle of grace and the beauty of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ.
“none of us are in our ‘right’ minds.” exactly. but the more we get to know the mind of Christ, and have our minds renewed by His word, the closer we get to our “right” minds…
i begin to consider athiesm the most when the son of one of the greatest preachers of our day struggles with a VERY EASILY explained ‘conundrum’. i mean come on!!
how could God invent such a system? HE DIDNT!!! ever heard of the fall?????
wow.
ouch. now, was that necessary? because it certainly wasn’t tactful.
Who our parents are does not exempt us from the spiritual questions that everyone wrestles with.
Actually, I’m glad Abraham posted this because it helps us think about things we believe more thoroughly and to know that we are not alone in wondering about some things.
That’s ridiculous. Just because someone is a “hebrew of hebrews” doesn’t negate him from having his own faith!
Just because someone has a question, or a doubt, doesn’t mean they don’t understand the technical answer. That technical answer needs to connect with the heart at some point. Otherwise, the person will never have their own faith. It will be their parent’s faith and God has no grandchildren.
I commend Abraham for being bold enough to air his questions. He is not concerned with looking like he has it all together, but rather being honest. I’ll take that any day.
John,
Your answer was very rash and unnecessary. You begin to consider atheism because there are believers that struggle with God-sized questions? Are you serious?
Signed,
A-dude-that’s-pissed-off-at-your-immature-comment
Your argument is a little self defeating isn’t it John? I mean the fall is the whole reason why any of us have questions about things that you call “very easy.” The fall also seems to explain the pride of such just such a statement as yours. Plus do you think that John Piper has no questions that he finds hard to answer?
Bad form James Hook, bad form.
wow.
Maybe you shouldn’t base your faith on anyone else’s faith or doubts.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]” – Wikipedia
John, I don’t think you read any of the previous. God did invent “rational” human beings who can in fact deny him. It was true before the fall, man, because that’s how the fall happened.
Abraham’s doubts would be a crummy reason for anyone to become an atheist. Get your own!
Abraham,
I prefer to keep my doubts to myself, in the hopes that they will perpetually gnaw away at my faith until I’m compelled to make an obnoxious comment on someones blog.
:)
It troubles me that sanctification takes so long, and most people think they have arrived already. Especially me.
Romans 3:1-11 really dropped a hammer on me about 2 years ago and forced me to realize that we are intellectually bent against God in our flesh. Read this passage and tell me this isn’t true. Then start reading about modern genetics and ask yourself why you really hesitate to trust the book of Genesis.
I find the “smugness” of many Christians disconcerting, in the face of the millions of people who wake up in hell every day. Why are we so sure of what we believe, yet so lacking in any real feeling for anyone else? This bothers me in others, because I see it in myself.
The absense of doubt is the essence of arrogance. It’s the difference between the disciples in Mark 9 and the father of the demonized son in
9:24-25. “I believe, help my unbelief”. Recognition of our doubt riddled flesh should cause great dependence. Many indulge their doubt till it engulfs them and they die in despair (Nietzche). However, I believe doubt should lead us to cry out to God, as the man spoken of earlier, “I believe, help my unbelief”. God delights in our complete dependence in him. Faith is a gift. Doubt can be a powerful driving force towards depedence on God and for it I am grateful.
I’m struggling with the issue of social justice. If there is no God, how come I must care for my fellow man myself or through my taxes for welfare? Survival of the fittest should take reign and charity become obsolete. I also struggle with the fact that so many Christians don’t care about social justice at all. I’m a little stuck on both currently.
That humans are reasonable/rational/sane is a bit of a presupposition, isn’t it?