Upsilon wrote:
And the same to you. Actually, in atheist Britain there's a fair bit of anti-Christian sentiment going around at the moment
We're used to it. Well, that's not true. But it's been pretty common, and it's why we (social we, not my ancestors specifically) left Britain. Of course, the Christians left and started a country where they won't be harassed, and by that principle didn't prohibit others from worshipping here. Now as a result of the fact that we granted them freedom, they want to take over and prohibit us from worshipping. There's a deadly amount of anti-Christian sentiment in parts of the U.S.
Upsilon wrote:
All I really know is that we're approximately 90% white and it seems to me that religion is fighting a losing battle against secularism (but I don't have any statistics to back up the latter).
It always will except possibly in an individual's heart.
Upsilon wrote:
Buz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
...if God had made himself universally known....
... at both Adam's time and Noah's... for every human individually.
I've always thought that God could simply make himself evident to the world in general - like the US President, to make a comparison, only more so. That way no-one would be in any doubt and people would be judged strictly on how well they lead their lives, as opposed to whether or not they decided to follow him.
Two notes, one is important theologically, and the other is important personally.
First, if anyone were judged on how they led their lives, and I mean anyone from Hitler to Mother Theresa, they would fall short of God's requirements. I know we've tread this ground before, but since it's so foundational to Christianity I can't remind myself about it enough. One sin per day, even a "white lie," is as bad as one teaspoon of urine in your beer, or one bit of manure in your brownie recepie. It ruins the whole batch. I, for one, am so glad that I -- a sinner by nature and habit -- can be cleansed by Christ (however it is that his death effects that result, I am still glad).
Secondly, what you ask is as impersonal as a newspaper article. God is not impersonal, just the opposite: he is intensely personal. Moses, Adam, David, Elijah, Jesus, Paul, John, Abraham, and so forth to me! We make the mistake of generalizing "each" to "every," and thus easily lose the personality of it all. Did you know that God said to Moses that he was willing to kill every single other Israelite and make a new nation, just out of Moses? The only reason that God worked with mass Israel was on behalf of their ancestor, Jabob (renamed Israel, the namesake of the nationality) and Moses begging that God would spare them all.
God does nothing of which I'm aware "to everyone" except in the fact that he does it "to each." While the mathematical quantifiers "for each" and "for every" are the same (the capital upside-down A), the meaning in English could not be more different. A soldier dies for his country, but a husband will die to defend his wife. A representative in the house of commons will make a rule for his nation, but a father makes a rule for his son. We think of Christianity in terms of the number of people in our church, Christ himself thought of it in terms of 12 men he spent a few years with.
I take back what I said in the above paragraph about "nothing to everyone as a mass," because my reflection made me realize that there is one thing he does by mass: destruction. He wipes out enemies in mass. But that goes with what I said about a husband and wife above. Christianity is about love and relationship, concepts which have no meaningful analogue without a specific individual object.
If you come to know God, it will not be as a result of him coming out a cloud and saying to the world, "Hey, do these things." It will be as a result of your personally getting to know him. This is consistent with the fact that every single Christian I know was won over, not by mass media or commandments, but by a friend or family member who showed God's love. And so, a government against Christianity (we discussed above) is less relevant. It's individuals who know God.
Now if you subsequently ask why God chose to act through personal love instead of mass instruction, you'll not find an answer in logic: you might as well ask why he didn't make the night sky white with black stars, or why we have 2 arms instead of 4. Your answer will be in your heart, because you know that love is better than ordinance. The risk of failure is greater, yes. But we all want, above every other natural desire, love.
Upsilon wrote:
Buz wrote:
I've suggested above that he's willing to do it at some level for every individual...
If this is true, I'll drop all charges against God. Deal? Deal.
Deal!
Upsilon wrote:
Buz wrote:
...everyone gets a chance like that at the moment of death, which is not a Biblical idea.
How would that work? God just appears to you once you've died, or what?
That's what one guy I otherwise respect said. I don't buy it.
Upsilon wrote:
Really, yes, I do rate this one quite highly in my file of theological questions. I have this little story which I call the Alien Named Chris Allegory. ... is it really fair that you were spared just because you were the only one who had reason to believe that it was true? The analogy should be clear.
Um, OK, you're right, no it's not fair. I'm not making an embarassing confession for Christianity, I'm saying that you're right to say that it's not fair that everyone didn't have a chance for deliverace. In fact, in reformed Christian theology, it's even more unfair: those who are fated to reprobation are psychologically incapacitated from believing in purple aliens, so to speak.
But I ask, why is Chris destroying humaity, and what's the $20 get him? Is it a "put your money where your mouth is" issue? If Chris is destroying humanity like American soldiers blew up Al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, then I really don't care that most didn't get a chance to defect, those jerks merited death. And herein lies the similarity to Christianity: no one's going to hell except sinners. That is, unfortunately, everyone (a misfortune of galactic proportions). This is Christianity 101, and lends perspective to your analogy. Your alien Chris buddy is not a maniacal conquistador with a strange taste in friends, he's on a mission to make the universe a better place, and only through his pity on you and anyone who'd join you has he accepted your $20. I mean, we (U.S. and U.K. ground forces) gave better accomodations to defector Iraquis during Gulf Wars I and II than their own government could. But not everyone believed the paper leaflets we dropped (telling them that we'd spare them), and not everyone got one.
The story is repeated over and over in alien mythology, meaning : Though Aldaris ordered Zerg-infested Terran worlds burned, Tassadar would not use the Protoss fleet against those that would cooperate. Kosh Naranek would not send planet killers against Shadow-touched worlds that had races inhabiting them if those races would cooperate with Vorlon guidance and resisted Shadow control. In the 1951
Day the Earth Stood Still, noncooperation with Klaatu meant death by Gort and his ilk. And when God destroyed the world with a flood, he spared the small family of Noah who was willing to build the boat.
So, is $20 for a scuba suit?
Anyway, the pattern is engrained in our psychology, and you'd probably do the same thing if you were in war. The problem may be that it doesn't feel like war when we walk outside in a cool summer rain, or go to a friend's wedding. The perspective of war changes our reaction to our own state of mind.
Upsilon wrote:
Well, yeah, if he does appear to me in a show of lightning and choirs of angels, I'll hardly be any position to argue.
Yeah, he's done that at least once in response to hard questions: the long, long book of Job describes the questions, then a brief and overwhelming "answer." But of course, one can infer from the first few chapters that Job was someone with whom God had a relationship.
Upsilon wrote:
So... basically, by "Jews", it actually means "Christians"?
Non-Gentile Christians, yes. I didn't mean to confuse you, and the implication was almost certainly clear to the original readers of the letter. And the fact that they weren't Christians before Christ was (future "was") revealed is what causes them to be labeled "Israel" in the passage.
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Didymus could be right and I could be wrong [...] Logic may not be eternal theologically.
You have a good point there. What you're saying is that reason is a bit like the law of gravity: while it always works in this universe, God can easily fiddle around with it or get rid of it altogether? Interesting...
Time definitely is like that. But logic... that's hard to accept. However, another great theologian Oswald Chambers in his exposition of the aforementioned book of Job said that the basis of the Universe is not
logical but
tragic. He thinks that logic is merely a human convention we impose to make sense of the maelstrom of events. I have trouble with that, but it is (heh) logical. Anyway, the real test of the eternality of logic (and of love, and of space, etc.) is whether it's an artefact of the universe or an attribute of God. Love is an attribute of God, space is not; therefore love is eternal and space is temporal. Logic is implied in a number of places throughout the Bible, but always in the context of behavioral reasoning (Acts 26:25, 1 Samuel 19:5, Job 2:3, Job 12:24, Job 32:11, Acts 17:2, 17, 18:4, 19, Romans 12:1, Hebrews 2:17, 9:15, 10:1, 1 Peter 3:15, and especially Isaiah 1:18 and John 8:47) and human versions of it (Matthew 12:10, 19:3, John 12:27, 1 Corinthians 12:15-16, 13:11, Hebrew 11:19) or the close cousin to logic, wisdom. Wisdom is commended in humans throughout the Bible and we know God is wise, so it's possible that logic, as a stepchild of wisdom, is eternal. But if someone who has a lot more education in these matters than I contradicts me, then I'm willing to learn. That, after all, is wisdom; and to be wise about wisdom, what could be wiser? Oh, and humble.
Upsilon wrote:
...I can address this apparent contradiction in more detail... to the NIV!
I think my predecessors have done the subject more justice than I could. Where I feel I have a little to add, I will. Actually, I wrote that sentence after doing about half of the adding; making me outside the timeline of your reading of this post. A very Godlike feeling when I make such a prophesy. Prophesy is the easiest of the miracles of God.
Didymus wrote:
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. That's one of the first things they teach us here in our biblical exegesis classes.
Location, location, location. Same concept, different application.
Didymus wrote:
Before quoting Psalm 18:41, you might want to look at v. 40. In v. 40, David is destroying his enemies with God's help. This is not about people seeking God, but God vindicating one of his saints against people who hate them both. The enemies are looking for someone to rescue them from David's (God's) wrath, but there is no help available to them anymore.
If I may be so bold as to add, the enemies are probably worse than you think. They probably thought, "God's a big, cosmic softie and David's his little chump. All we have to do is ask God for help like David does, and we can commit atrocity after atrocity. Because God's a big goodie-two-shoes he'll forgive us and we can get away with murder." When someone with that attitude asks God, basically believing he can manipulate God into doing what a mere man wants, that fool will be surprised how quickly and decisively the hammer falls. You (the rhetorical you) can not manipilate God to do your bidding.
Didymus wrote:
Quote:
Proverbs 1:28 says: "Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me." I'm a bit unsure about this one, since apparently this is wisdom talking, not God.
This is about wisdom. But look at v. 24. These are people who had already rejected wisdom; they had no place for it in their lives. Then, when tragedy struck, they had not consolation. It's their own fault, not God's, even if it were referring to God and not wisdom.
The wisdom allegory here is both deep and profound. But what it comes to is that you can't get the results of being wise without behaving wisely. It personifies wisdom and describes her as rewarding investment, but refusing those who don't make the investment. It sort of like trying to cash in your retirement account at 65 and being
surprised it's empty though you never made a contribution.
Didymus wrote:
Lamentations is a poem about Jeremiah's struggle with faith. A reading of the whole book is necessary to understand it. Jeremiah FEELS as though God doesn't care, and he expresses that in his writing. But in fact, God does care, and Jeremiah begins to realize this later in the poem.
Lamentations is not theological literature, it is a poem. Though much theology can be derived from Biblical poetry, we also allow men to express their feelings about God and man. For example, David in one poem expressing great hurt wishes he could run to his enemies' city and grab their infant children, then smash their baby skulls on the pavement. Now no Christian believes that he can actually do such a horrible thing! But many of us have felt that way (not the specifics, but to that extent) in our darker hours. When I trust God for everything to go OK in my life, then (for example) my child dies from Lukemia, I'll also question God's willingness to hear my prayer. That is the nature of Lamentations for a city of Jews who believed God would supernaturally protect their city because of the presence of the temple. C.S. Lewis wrote a similar prosaic opus,
A Grief Observed, after his wife died very early in their marriage. In it, he accuses God of all kinds of things we don't like to think about. But the fact that God embraces our expressions of pain and wants us to be open (speaking, writing and reading) about the subject of suffering, makes me respect him more, not less.
Upsilon wrote:
...a reading of the passage in full only tells me that God "doesn't know them or where they came from". Far from being an aid to insight, that just throws an extra bucket of mystery on this verse.
I refer back to the intensely personal relationship God seeks with individuals. "I don't know you" is the ultimate description of what it means to be a non-Christian from God's point of view.
Didymus wrote:
...you have sought ANSWERS, and there is a difference. Not that the two aren't connected. ... Job didn't get all his questions answered, and the simple fact is that neither will we.
We can reason together, and make metaphors. God may not be obligated to explain everything, but he does give each person what he needs. If Upsilon needs answers, truly needs them, I believe they will be provided. If (as you suggested about Upsilon's spiritual journey) the questions are actually superficial while something bigger is going on inside, that real need is what God will provide if he provides anything. What I think he needs (just an educated guess) is someone local to him that he knows and trusts who knows Jesus in the same way that we do. Upsilon's relationship with God, if there is to be one, will be personal, and so will its beginning be. All we can provide in this conglomeration of electrons is information. As long as I can type, I will try to communicate answers. But like Didymus said, there are times where I won't have any to give.
Upsilon wrote:
So [the wisdom principle] goes for God as well? How does this mean that I stand? Does God intend to ignore me because I "had no place for him"?
The principle is somewhat pervasive, though there are exceptions. Saul of Tarsus, for example, had no place for Jesus. We trace most of our Christian theology to him since, after Christ got a hold of him, he followed Christ with more vehemence than he had rejected him beforehand.
Upsilon wrote:
There seems to be only one example of this...It looks completely out of place compared with the rest of the poem.
See also the book of Jeremiah and references to Jeremiah in Daniel and Matthew.
Upsilon wrote:
I think that's one of the reasons that I find Christianity in general frustrating: bits don't make sense, small parts don't fit in, and when I try to find answers, there are never any.
It's not really that different in that respect from the inside. Your reading of Lamentations shows that the people of God don't get answers so much either. Modern Christians (Lewis above and myself among them) have come to believe that there are a lot of revealed truths that we need to search out and understand better, never giving up just because someone says "there is no answer to that." But we also accept that there are some unsearchable, unrevealed truths. For example, a better knowledge of physics can make someone a better theologian, though many would say "we can't know where the universe came from." It's all in the perspective: Carl Sagan was a bad theologian while Stephen Hawking is actually pretty good. So, to the point, growing in knowledge and wisdom is right and good. But sometimes the journey is longer than our lifespan. Some pop philosophers say that the journey itself is what's important.
racerx_is_alive wrote:
...of course, God answers our prayers, etc... on his own timetable.
Don't I know it! Sometimes he takes his sweet time.
Upsilon wrote:
racerx_is_alive wrote:
...try and repent on their deathbeds, so to speak. By that time, it is too late. At least this is one of the interpretations that I take.
You're probably right, but the verse doesn't exactly specify.
Another C.S. Lewis book,
The Great Divorce, tackles the question of deathbed and post-deathbed repentings in a fanciful manner. It's his thesis that the result of a corrupted mind is a hatred for God that would rather have hell than be with someone like God appears to be. That's why I asked such apparently harsh questions about hating God before I got to know you better; to determine if you were that far out yet. No offense intended.