Tell me all your thoughts on God

Posted on June 8, 2007 by me

Tell me all your thoughts on God
Tell me, am I very far?
– Counting Blue Cars, Dishwalla

When talking about issues of religion, faith and questions of God, it is of utmost importance to consider our view of God. This seems patently obvious, but I doubt that most people, even Christians, really have a good, solid grasp of what they believe about God, or how they even arrive at their concepts of God. Many people have vague, mythological, and outright bizarre notions of who God is, that are not only inconsistent with the Bible, but may be inconsistent with their own beliefs. For example, it has been a focus (too much, in my opinion) of some counseling methods that our view of God is directly related to our relationship with our fathers. Then, many people are influenced by their theological upbringing, especially those raised Catholic or Fundamentalist/Holiness traditions.

For many people, there is a major confusion about God as they see a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament (the mean, vindictive, warrior God) and the New (the nice, loving, “meek & mild” God). Or, they see Jesus and the Father as “good God, bad God.” However, both the Old and New Testaments are clear that God does not change. Malachi 3:6 says, “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” James affirms “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” It’s odd to me that as the issue of God is so terribly important (to both believers and serious atheists), people don’t take the time to at least try to figure out who God really is. Of course, I suspect that many people actually like the confusion, as it allows them to believe whatever they want. “Virtual reality” is not something limited to computers – people have been creating their own virtual realities for thousands of years.

So, how are we to figure out who God is? And perhaps more importantly, can we figure out who God is?

I am currently reading Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis, which, by the way, is really trying my patience; it is one of the most ridiculous books I’ve tried reading in some time. My point in mentioning this, however, is that as he begins he presents various philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God, that he seems to accept without question. Most of these arguments are good examples of “straw God” arguments – they present a God that no one claims to believe in, and disproves their existence. It’s all fairly foolish, and I’ll talk about them at some point. Of all of the arguments against the existence of God, I haven’t heard one which actually deals with the God of Christian Orthodoxy.

Now, there are differing viewpoints within Christian Orthodoxy about God, which is to be expected. My son, Isaiah, believes that this is one of the more convincing things about Christianity. If someone wanted to make up a religion, they’d make it a whole lot tighter than Christianity is (this, by the way, tends to explain fundamentalism). Like science, theology is a journey toward knowledge. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t things we can know, and proper methods to use.

Stay tuned for more…

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings | Leave a comment

Offensive Grace

Posted on June 5, 2007 by me

I have been very surprised that what is turning out to be a common “hot button” with atheists with regard to Christianity is the concept of grace. Actually, more than surprised – I am just shocked. I never would have thought that anyone (besides those legalistic types we refer to as Pharisees) would be so angered by the thought that someone else thinks they’re getting forgiven for free. One example comes from The Great Blasphemy Challenge Debate, where one of the atheists – I think it was Brian – went off on the subject. If you find it online somewhere, it’s worth watching, just to hear the emotion when the subject is discussed.

Grace is obviously offensive. Should I be shocked? As I mentioned, I’ve known legalists – those who insist that there’s some kind of point system, or that you get saved for free, but to stay saved you’ve got to work for it – who are outright grace-haters. I understand this – it’s all explained in the famous story we call the Prodigal Son: the older son gets ticked that the prodigal gets welcomed back with open arms. However, to those who don’t believe there’s a point system in the first place, why should they care? If there’s no God to do any law-giving or forgiving in the first place, and then no absolute moral code to break, therefore there are no sins to be forgiven from. What, then, does it matter that Christians claim to be forgiven for sins that don’t exist? Interesting, isn’t it?

Of course, there also seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the Gospel; there’s apparently some belief among atheists that Christians believe that because they are forgiven, they are now free to sin. On one hand, of course, the atheists may understand this better than many Christians. Paul works through this in Romans chapter 5, where his argument for grace comes to the point where sin increases, grace increases all the more. There is no sin (except that gnarly old unforgivable one) too big for God not to forgive. However, if we turn the page to Romans 6, we get to where Paul asks the obvious question, “should we then sin more to get more grace? God forbid!” For you see, the Christian teaching is that sin is tantamount to slavery – it is the opposite of freedom (which, of course, we get along with grace). So, “free to sin” is an oxymoron. Now, we do have some oxymorons out there who can’t seem to figure this out, but they are actually quite rare.

Paul teaches this clearly, as does John in 1 John 2:3-6:

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

It is clear Christian teaching that yes, we are forgiven, once and for all (no indulgences or penance required). It is also clear Christian teaching that we are to “be perfect, as the Heavenly Father is perfect.” That, of course, is really what grace is all about – the power to actually live up to the forgiveness we’ve received.

So, perhaps a better presentation of the Gospel would make it less offensive… or, perhaps not. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 18 & 19,

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

The Gospel does have that offensive aspect to it, especially the way Paul puts it:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

He goes on, before he gets to the grace part, to point out how we all have sinned, yada yada. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere… to get to grace, we have to get through the part where we actually need grace – and that means accepting who we are as sinners, and accepting who God is as not just the lawgiver, but as forgiver as well. It’s like accepting an Altoid from someone – it means admitting you’ve got barn breath.

So, grace is offensive… but given the option, I’d rather have it. Altoid, anyone?

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff | 5 Comments

The journey of Antony Flew

Posted on June 5, 2007 by me

Antony Flew (Dawkins and Harris notwithstanding) had been probably the most well-known atheist over the last 50 or more years (he’s in his 80’s now). I say “had” because in 2004, he indicated that he had changed his mind with regard to atheism, and had come to believe that there must be some form of a god. While still not (as far as I know) being a Theist, Flew is now a Deist.

What changed his mind was science; in an interview with Dr. Gary Habermas, Flew stated, “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. … I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” He became convinced, through various advancements in things like DNA research, “Big Bang” cosmology and fine-tuning arguments, that there must be an intelligent designer.

Not surprisingly, in a way that only he can, Richard Dawkins has suggested that Flew’s mental abilities are not what they used to be. I suspect this in large part is due to Flew admitting that part of what convinced him was Michael Behe’s books. (What is surprising is that Dawkins admits in the same speech that the “fine tuning” argument would not be “a wholly disreputable” reason for a belief in a supernatural deity. Go figure.) However, if you read just a small portion of any of the post-atheist interviews with Flew and compare them to Dawkins’ writings, I suspect that it would be Dawkins whose mental abilities would be suspect.

Flew states that he would rather there not be an afterlife, that he’s lived long enough already. He was not inclined, at least in 2004, to become a Theist. However, he had some other interesting things to say, including some thoughts on the question of the Resurrection of Jesus:

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.

The entire interview is well worth reading. You can also find some interview clips on YouTube (as well as the Dawkins clip I referred to earlier).

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | Leave a comment

My summer reading list

Posted on June 4, 2007 by me

I went to Borders yesterday and bought Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis. I’ve been wanting to read it for myself, although I really hated spending money on it. As I set it on my desk, I noticed a partial stack of the other books I’ve recently acquired. It looks like I’ve got a busy summer ahead of me. Here’s at least a partial list of my good intentions:

I Sold My Soul on eBay, by Hemant Mehta. Sent to me by my friend Mike, this is the story of the author, an atheist, selling the opportunity on eBay for the highest bidder to take him to church. Jim Henderson, from Off The Map, was the highest bidder. I’ve wanted to read this, and look forward to seeing what Hemant has to say.

Looking for God Knows What, by Donald Miller. A gift from friend, this appears to be another interesting, as well as humorous, look at the American Christian experience. I took it to church one Sunday (I often bring something to read as the sermons are often devoid of content), but I had to stop due the tendency to laugh out loud.

Evil and the Justice of God, NT Wright. I love NT Wright, as anyone who knows me knows.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins. I have a hold on this at the local library; apparently it’s in high demand. I’ll review this as soon as I’ve read it.

The End of Faith, Sam Harris. I’ve read enough by Harris to know his basic arguments, but want to at least skim the book, and will post on this one, too.

Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris. Might as well read the set.

Surprised by Joy, CS Lewis. I read this many years ago, and a friend suggested I reread it. It will probably serve as my “back-up” book, and kind of a “palate-cleanser.”

The Hidden Face of God, by Gerald Schroeder. On loan from my father-in-law, this is an interesting book that is subtitled How science reveals the ultimate truth. Schroeder is an MIT-educated Israeli (Jewish) with education & experience in both biology and physics. I’m a few pages into this, and I am really appreciating the Jewish philosophical slant of this book.

This list, of course, doesn’t include the handful of novels that I’ve accumulated. Among those I intend to read are a few classics, such as Frankenstein and Phantom of the Opera.

Now, I just need some free time.

Posted in Random Thoughts | 2 Comments